Legatissimo.info

name: Justin

type of message: Negative

comments: For the records I think you are adding to the dissemination of false information. Your "social experiment" doesnt prove anything or teach anything new. So thanks for wasting peoples time.

To which I replied:

Justin-

Thanks for taking the time to write in and bring up an interesting point. I would be amiss not to inform you that it is a question I wrestle with, from time to time. And every time I consider the situation, I always end up at the same conclusion: Gullible.info does much more good than harm.

You'll probably be quick to dismiss me, that's fine, I don't really even expect you to read all of this. It seems as if you have made up your mind. But you should realize that the points that I'm about to present are not just spur of the moment justifications, but meticulously considered arguments in favor of something that seems counter intuitive.

First and foremost, Gullible.info is a learning experience for many people. Too often people make the assumption that information online is immediately on par with information found in other media. This, however, is not true. Consider: http://martinlutherking.org. At first glance this appears to be a website commemorating the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King. It has no disclaimer, it has only one link at the bottom of the site, which might give someone pause: "Hosted by Stormfront."

Martinlutherking.org isn't a site run to educate people about the incredible change MLK Jr. helped to bring about in the world. It is a smear site run by the despicably racist, white supremacist group Stormfront White Nationalist Community. If you want to discuss negative implications of information on the internet, Stormfront.org would be a great place to start. However, if you were to write them an email such as the one you have sent me, I'm confident it would not be met with a satisfactory response.

But this is a broader point than just one hate site. The fact is, the nature of information dissemination is changing, and as a result society must change how it interfaces with information as well. Previously, there was a high cost of gathering and publishing information. This threshold cost helped to ensure that information was vetted -- checked for accuracy -- before it was distributed. Now, as those costs lower, it is possible for anyone -- digital divide aside -- to publish information online. There are only a handful of people who think this is a bad thing. I, for one, am not one of those people. We, as a networked society, have access to exponentially expanding amounts of information, and I think that makes us much better off. But that transition must be accompanied by changes in our patterns of activity.

Because information is not vetted prior to publishing, information consumers must take that burden on themselves. We, the people who access information, are now responsible for deciding if the information has merit. The problem here is that for thousands of years we've grown accustom pre-considered information, so people aren't aware that this is a step they have to take themselves.

Now, what would a justification of Gullible.info be without a mention of Gullible.info? Not much. So here's where it comes together. Gullible.info is a "trivia" site... trivia of course being defined as "Insignificant or inessential matters; trifles." (dictionary.com). Considering that, if someone comes to the site, fails to understand the concept, and then believes that ants do not perceive gravity, I would be hard pressed to think of a way that their life would be negatively impacted in any sort of a meaningful way. (For the record, that is not true of MartinLutherKing.org.)

Gullible.info serves to illustrate this need in an interesting and engaging way. We've got tens of thousands of daily visitors, most of whom understand the nature of the site, and continue visiting anyway. We have hundreds of thousands of daily hits on our Google module. A few people even say they keep it on their custom homepage to continuously remind them about the new responsibilities they have in an information-abundant environment. I know of teachers and librarians who use the site as a key part of lesson plans about information literacy.

At any rate, I hope this clears up some of my reasoning for you. I probably haven't yet convinced you that the site is an overwhelmingly positive thing (as I believe it to be), but hopefully you realize that it does have redeeming value. Feel free to write back if you'd like.

-Kyle