What Does High Bilirubin Mean In A Toddler

and its opposite

Falling on an interview with Umberto Eco more I understood his concern about a society that all offers universal access to information .

He proposes a distinction between two groups of users to access tools to information: the "poor" and "rich". Here "poor" and "rich" are not to be taken in their physical connotation, but rather in terms of "evolution cultural ". For example, "a graduate is rich, a poor illiterate" (although obviously, there may be exceptions).

And these tools to access information in the broadest sense, that is to say, television, press, radio, internet, do not provide benefits for all, as the group that the uses.

"So the TV is good for the poor and hurt the rich" said Umberto Eco. "To the poor she learned to speak Italian, it is good for little old ladies by themselves at home. But it hurts the rich because it prevents them from seeing out of other most beautiful things in the cinema and it restricts their ideas. "

" The computer in general and Internet in particular, are good for the rich and hurt the poor. To me, Wikipedia has something, I find the information I need. But that is because I do not have blind faith in it [...]»

Since the rich have grown, they are able to cross check and sources. "The poor, however gobbles the first statement that passes, and endpoint. In other words, there arises for Wikipedia, like the Internet in general, the issue of verification of information . "Internet keeps both good and bad information. There is, virtually everything and its opposite.

Without checking the information, "inform" the poor like playing the lottery.

Before our world of information overload, information was (in percentage) rather rare. Or rather, the cost of producing and distributing newspapers, television, books and limited quantity, and forced a sort of relevance a priori. Scarcity (relative) and validation before publication we could, without too much difficulty, relying on what existed. Let's say the probability was on our side.

Now the question is complicated: everything and its opposite. For each theory, perspective or fact, it is possible to find another that contradicts it. It becomes ridiculous to say that something exists or that it supports the validity of his views on the basis of the "discovery of a web page that confirms the Internet." An archaeological dig on the internet is still reporting that you want to confirm. And its opposite. Find

no longer prove

Search tools are just spreading a false perception of competence.

Puisqu'internet keeps everything in writing, both false information as valid, only the "rich" have the means to verify, because the extent of their sphere of competence knowledge induces. Access to information does not guarantee anything. In my case and that of my readers too, "we know we know", but the system of education is he prepared to educate these (new) "poor", those who do not know they do not know ?