Lies, Lies, and the Internet

The Internet may be the ultimate shop window, where anything can be on display but the content of the store is very limited. Blogs may be one of the best examples of this. At the risk of making my own efforts redundant, I just say that a blog is nothing more than it originally set out to be: a web log. It does not have to be factual. It does not have to be erudite. It does not have to be relevant. Like a person's handwritten diary, it is what the author wants it to be. So, why are some asking for more than that?

Other things now common to the Internet are not in the same vein. I think immediately of Wikipedia, whose co-founder, Larry Sanger, recently criticised the UK Education Secretary for suggesting that it was "a good educational tool for children" (see link). Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica , but in the Internet age many people have no idea what is the difference. People tend to treat Internet material like they used to treat the police: they are good, uphold the law, and always tell the truth. We have many examples now of policemen acting like criminals and lying, and doing so habitually. The Internet is no different, and one of its greatest traps is to pull people in who have few means to determine what is truth.

What Mr. Sanger was referring to was criticism of Wikipedia for being riddled with inaccuracies and nonsense. It was revealed in March that a prominent and long-standing Wikipedia contributor had lied about his identity, having claimed to be a tenured university professor, when he was in fact a 24-year-old college drop-out.Concerned about the website’s integrity, Mr Sanger left Wikipedia, and two weeks ago launched an online encyclopedia called Citizendium.org, which he said would be monitored and edited by academics and experts as well as accepting public contributions. I hope that this merits a "Bravo" for integrity.

There are some sophisticated examples of the lengths that honest Internet companies and users must go to to establish their honesty and goodwill, because they are building honest businesses. I think of eBay's auction system (and its rating system, plus other means of weeding out crooks). I think also of Internet banking sites, such as PayPal. But who can I trust on the Internet to give me a simple service?

Blogging is posing a tricky problem. So far the blogosphere has no real accountability, and perhaps it never will. Someone can write drivel, insult, tell lies, post defamatory material, remain relatively anonymous and perhaps stay above any legal redress. You can also see blogging as an easy doorway into what I will call "shadow boxing". Imagine that for whatever reason someone blogs but wants to spice up the ratings or supposed importance of a blog site. Then one of the easiest things to do is to create a "rival" blog, which takes the original blog site to task. Immediately, there is a phony war being staged and the only people who really know what's going on are the creators. Too much to believe? I don't think so.

I'm not wholly cynically, but I know it's not easy to sense when people are being fraudulent. I've sold on eBay (brand new items, used household items, even used cars) and I know that my reputation is the most important thing to my successful trading. So, my goods are genuine, and I try to deliver on all my promises. Sellers on eBay are protected by payment coming before delivery. I have also bought on eBay, and I have suffered (only twice, thankfully) from fraudsters: a harsh reminder of "Buyer, beware!"

Dishonesty is a part of the world, and the Internet should not be seen as immune from that. Before the Internet, we relied more on newspapers, radio, and television for much of our information beyond our local world, and believed that codes of conduct and professional ethics would protect us. With the Internet, we have very few codes of anything, and ethics are not essential. Using the Internet should not stop us from thinking, though its shimmer tends to make us believe in too much that we see online.