Ignorance Brought by Abundance of Information
It's a strange name, isn't it? Ignorance within knowledge. It would be truly admirable to achieve this, but I'm so enraged I don't see it happening.
Normally, I don't just think of something and say, "Let's write about it." I have a great RSS feed. I add my favorite sites there and read the news. If something interests me, I'll research it further and write about it. Initially, it was filled with Turkish content, but over time, it shifted to English. Then I realized it was almost entirely in English. Sometimes, I even thought, "I'll just read the scientific paper first, and this won't work."
Today I'm going to explain why this is the case, and why I'm so angry.
With my background in the IT industry, I can say this: Nearly 80 percent of the information on the internet, which we brag about and claim is readily accessible to everyone, is false or untrue. Whether knowingly or unknowingly. Because I'm always driven to delve deeper (and I'm so glad I am), I've discovered that as I delve deeper, almost all Turkish-sourced information has become nothing more than urban legend. Over time, my sources, initially in English, have now transitioned to direct scientific articles.
But that's not why I'm so angry. I've explained the process. One of the things that irritates me is the efforts of newspapers, news sites, IT sites (!) (I also follow the IT sector as part of my job), and many others, to publish scientific news simply for the sake of reporting, to create a glut of news. There are no sources, the headline doesn't match the content, the news itself is often wrong, and there's often no real issue to explain, yet they still report it. Is this journalism? Why interfere in matters you don't know anything about? Give Caesar what belongs to him and leave it to the experts. Is it befitting your journalism, your character, to fill people with false information, whether unknowingly or knowingly, just to get a hit, just to make a story? Or will my words be in vain because you don't have an honest, impartial journalistic approach? I think so. Because most of the time, when I've asked you to correct your accounts and emails, citing the original source, I haven't even received a response.
Another thing that pisses me off is that even the sites I follow with great enthusiasm and staffed by truly knowledgeable people can easily fall for this. This pisses me off even more. I shouldn't see this in them. Let's give you an example. A week or a half ago, a few news articles appeared about the holographic nature of the universe. I took notes. I read them and decided I'd write a more detailed article. Today, a newspaper ran a headline saying "holographic universe clearly PROVEN (!!!)" and our clever little niggas immediately started sharing it. Which one of you should I write to individually? I said I'd send you the original news, but you didn't even respond. There's no evidence, so at least you don't do it, my friend. You've been in this business for so long, and you believe these newspapers? I still can't understand. Besides that, doesn't your scientific nature motivate you to investigate the details of this? Do you believe everything you see?
Okay, I make mistakes too. Sometimes I misspell things due to translation errors. I thank them here (Zafer, especially you), they point me out, and I correct them. I don't claim to know best. If anyone sees my mistake, write it here, email me, do something, but just let me know. No one is perfect. We just need to know how to question and critique ourselves.
Kind regards..
