I've been in running discussions, over a wide range of political topics ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

with a group of people.

My interaction with this group proves to me, once again, that the google is a dangerous thing, it gives folks a false impression of possessing knowledge, and/or understanding, of a subject. You want to appear to be smart on "Apple Pie"? ... Google: "Best Apple Pie" and instantly, we become Apple Pie experts ... without ever actually, having baked one; or, without even having actually seen anything but a picture of an apple!

The thing that worries me is this group votes (at a higher rate than the general population) and biggest "offenders" of "google-based expertise tend to be the loudest voices ... and their opinions (and those informed by the "knowledge" of the loud voices) on a broad number of topics is based on a very shaky (at best) understanding of the subject ... googling and reading an article (or ten), should never be mistaken for having anything more than a passing acquaintance on a topic, even if you really did understand the article(s).

ETA: No ... this isn't about DU.

[bravenak]

1. We got a bunch of Google PHD's.

Don't forget the dictionary professionals. If the word was defined by Webster in 1840, then thats the definition they're gonna use! No matter what!

[Fred Sanders]

2. I am not a scientist/economist/etc.....so I do not pretend to be one...but I know some who are. What do they say?

Logic never heard from the media or the tea hats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. It is not limited to ...

the tea hats.

It amazes me how frequently liberals fall into this trap ... arguing an opinion based on an article that they read (and maybe understood) on a topic. They appear smart ... until they attempt to argue beyond the four corners of the article, then it becomes clear that they have a dangerously shallow understanding of the subject.

[giftedgirl77]

4. lolololololol, I love the Wikipedia scholars....

Even my kids know that's not a reputable source when quoting facts or trying to argue a point but somewhere along the way it became the new go to peer reviewed journal.

[Jim Lane]

7. Wikipedia is often an excellent source.

On a comparatively static topic (the Battle of Waterloo or the like) you can probably do better elsewhere.

But on a topic that's contemporary and controversial and prominent, the Wikipedia article will be getting attention from people with different points of view, so the junk on both sides gets weeded out.

Suppose an intelligent English-speaking adult in a foreign country asked you to recommend a source of information about a particular current American politician. You can certainly find bios of Obama or Cruz or whoever painting the subject as a saint... or as a demon. If someone wants to make the kind of thorough and rigorous study that 1StrongBlackMan rightly says is best, that person should read all such sources; but if someone just wants to read one bio article to get the basics, without spending a whole lot of time mastering the details, I'd say that recommending the Wikipedia article would be a good bet.

A reader who wants to go a bit beyond the basic article can go to its associated Talk page to see what fine points the editors are arguing about -- or, of course, can follow the citation links. Wikipedia is often an excellent portal to other sources.

I'll admit my bias as a longtime Wikipedia editor. Nevertheless, I do think that it gets a bad rap from people pointing out that it's not perfect. Point me to an online source that IS perfect and I'll reconsider.

[rbrnmw]

5. it seems folks think the internet

makes them all knowing. It actually makes them look shallow and foolish.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Every internet search should start with the term ...

"Confirmation Bias".

And if the first thought of the searcher is, "Yeah ... That's what they suffer from", perhaps they should post the results of their subsequent searches, because it results in one posting links, in response to another's assertion that trade deficits reflects the relative economic strength of respective trade partners, to a decade old research (papers) stating "trade deficits are the cause of job loss", without acknowledging that the paper linked to puts the number at 20% (meaning 80% of the job loss was due to other factors), and with no mention of relative currency strength of the trade nations ... until someone else brings it up ... then, an article is posted stating that job loss (or deficits? ...it was never made clear) is "all because of currency manipulation."

All, with no recognition that the latter article disputes the former.