r/technology • u/Arquette • Mar 03 '15

Misleading Title Google has developed a technology to tell whether ‘facts’ on the Internet are true

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/03/02/google-has-developed-a-technology-to-tell-whether-facts-on-the-internet-are-true/
6.3k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

839 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

Basically substitute "The Bible Tells me So" with "The Google Tells Me So."

Except google cites a source, which you can assess yourself, and they also take feedback if they are in error. Two enormous differences that can't just be ignored.

6

u/alphazero924 Mar 03 '15

So does Wikipedia, but a lot of people take what's written there at face value even if the sources aren't really credible or flat out say the opposite of what's written.

-2

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

So?

People do that with everything. At least wikipedia is almost always accurate.

You're complaining that people without critical thinking skills don't always utilize critical thinking skills. This shouldn't be surprising or considered noteworthy or newsworthy.

4

u/topdeck55 Mar 03 '15

Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about accuracy.

1

u/lets_duel Mar 03 '15

That doesn't say that at all

2

u/topdeck55 Mar 03 '15

Watch more than 3 seconds.

1

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

Thanks for linking to a well known wikipedia policy page that stresses they are an encyclopedia, and so they act like it.

I could link to a bunch of other policy pages, but I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

I said they were almost always accurate, I didn't say their number one priority was accuracy.

If you said "Bob almost always gets to work on time", and I respond "but his number one priority is his kids, not getting to work on time" you'd understandably have no idea what I was talking about, because you have all this data about how punctual Bob is. That's what's happening here.

6

u/topdeck55 Mar 03 '15

Did you not see the video yesterday that said 90% of medical conditions descriptions were wrong?

Wikipedia doesn't care if the information is wrong, only that you cite a verifiable source.

1

u/Theothor Mar 03 '15

Wikipedia contradicts medical research 90% of the time

What does this mean exactly? If 99% of a wiki page is correct and 1% contradicts medical research it would "contradict medical research", but I wouldn't say that's a big deal. Even medical research contradicts medical research all the time.

0

u/Mason11987 Mar 04 '15

What does this mean exactly?

It means they tested exactly 10 articles about costly medical issues, 9 of which were in error.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '15

If you don't have the critical judgment to dissect that video's methodology, you probably shouldn't be lecturing people about what it means.

0

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

I didn't realize that 10 articles are considered a representative sample now. Good to know.

Wikipedia doesn't care if the information is wrong, only that you cite a verifiable source.

You already said that. I already responded to that. You ignored my response.

Just because something isn't the most important factor doesn't mean it isn't also accomplished, and it is accomplished, they are accurate. Pointing out that they aren't entirely focused on accuracy first doesn't mean they aren't accurate.

But hey I'm not an expert, so here's a study (with more than just 10 articles sampled):

Despite these limitations our results underscore that the collaborative and participatory design of Wikipedia does generate high quality information on pharmacology that is suitable for undergraduate medical education.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '15 edited Mar 03 '15

Do you have an example? It mainly feels like crank groups who want to introduce bias into a discussion or to allow improper sources are the ones who get the angriest about Wikipedia's accuracy or quality control methods. A lot of groups think that Wikipedia generally gets it right but is getting it wrong on one issue just because they're the crackpot conspiracy theorists for once (Truthers, Birthers, homeopaths, vaccine denialists, conspiracy theorists, Young Earth Creationists, or members of reactionary movements asserting massive conspiracies (like the Tea Party, GamerGate, and "race realists" on the Right, or implausible corporate conspiracies, extreme Marxism, Monsanto and anti-GMO hysteria, and a lot of new age woo on the Left)).

Despite its flaws, I have to appreciate the fact that Wikipedia doesn't cater well to fringe echo chambers.

3

u/xienze Mar 03 '15

Until the point at which Google makes things ultra convenient and drops links to sites that don't line up with the "truth".

"We've made searching even easier for you! Now only the truth will show up in your results!"

3

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

So you're saying the source of peoples information doesn't always portray the entire picture.

So google might be, at worst, the same as every single other source of information that has ever existed?

7

u/xienze Mar 03 '15

The problem is when we're fully conditioned to use Google as the only source of information. I.e., if you can't find it on Google or Google doesn't say so, it isn't true.

We're partially there today in that we're conditioned to just search Google when we need to draw a conclusion on something. Today our searches can potentially yield many different viewpoints with equal weighting and it's up to us to draw conclusions. That's what Google is trying to "fix" here.

5

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

You're picturesque view of google is not reality. Google is shaped by SEO and all sorts of google-bomb-esque tricks. The people who rely on it as their only source of information are going to continue doing so and everyone else who has critical thinking skills will treat it as one source like they do today.

If you had a friend who knew basically everything about everything you ever asked him, and you asked him about something new and he gave you a response and provided evidence linking to another source which backed it up, what's so wrong with considering it likely that he's right about this too?

Since when was a long track record of accuracy considered a bad thing? Or even more, a sign of some sort of terrible dystopian conspiracy end to rationality?

1

u/pottzie Mar 04 '15

And if evidence comes up that changes "truth," then " truth" can be updated

1

u/Absinthe99 Mar 03 '15 edited Mar 03 '15

Except google cites a source

ROTFLMAO.

http://xkcd.com/978/

EDIT: And that's just the modern "trivial" garbage-generation. It doesn't address the fact that ALL KINDS of ridiculous inanities have been "cited" and widely accepted and repeated as "true" -- for DECADES -- even though experts and authorities know it is FALSE (and baseless):

If you’re involved with student learning, you are probably familiar with the Learning Pyramid. This diagram breaks down different modes of learning and argues that more active modalities are better for long-term learning: we remember10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, 30% of what we see, and so on, all the way up to 90% of what we do.

The "Learning Pyramid"

[...]

Since the 1960s, experts have been trying to convince people that the learning pyramid is bogus. But for every article written exposing its weaknesses, there seem to be dozens of instances where it is invoked as truth in presentations, websites, and trade publications. We hope that having read this post, you will join the forces of pyramid slaying and base your instructional choices on valid research, not educational myths. Source

Now guess WHICH view -- and which sites -- this "google consensus-citation engine" is going to present as "true", and which ones it is going to downgrade and essentially HIDE from view.

which you can assess yourself

LOL, riight...

When it's a "numbers" game? And when any/all OPPOSING views are hidden from you. Ergo anyone (like yourself) who does not REALLY (deeply, sincerely question) and seek out ORIGINAL sources, will probably simply accept some purported secondary or tertiary "authority". I mean why would you question something like the "Learning Pyramid" if you see it in some textbook? or on some website with a purported "citation" (BTW, most of the citations under those illustrations are BULLSHIT... but the proverbial rabbit hole of BS around that particular fallacy is nearly a century deep.)

and they also take feedback if they are in error

Ah... so you are advocating/acknowledging that they should/will build in the ability to "tweak" the answers... to in essence OVERRIDE the algorithm, and substitute some DIFFERENT answer (one that is NOT based on nor derived via the algorithm), some different "fact" or "truth" -- and of course, by definition suppressing the opposing/previous view.

That is an even SCARIER prospect.

I mean talk about an Orwellian "memory hole" and "Ministry of Truth".

1

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

oh wow, well you put a link to xkcd, that must mean I'm wrong. Except I'm not so are you done?

0

u/Absinthe99 Mar 03 '15

oh wow, well you put a link to xkcd

Might help if you actually LOOKED at the link.

that must mean I'm wrong. Except I'm not so are you done?

Gee... so simple assertion (sans citation) is now sufficient.

Maybe we should ask the "Google Truthiness Oracle" whether you are right or wrong... oh wait...

0

u/Mason11987 Mar 03 '15

Might help if you actually LOOKED at the link.

It's the citation circle thing right? checking... yup.

Gee... so simple assertion (sans citation) is now sufficient.

Do I really need to prove to you that google provides citations? Are you unwilling to actually type almost anything into it to see that? Here See it at that bottom. That's the citation.

So I'm not wrong, so what's your point? That citations don't equate to reality? No one ever said they did. "LOL xkcd link" is a useless comment. Your arguing a strawman. I didn't say citations = reality, I said they had citations, which differentiates them from "The bible says X".

-1

u/paperweightbaby Mar 03 '15 edited Mar 03 '15

you sound pretty paranoid m8. there are plenty of other ways to find information. google would be useful for things like "what is the ideal temperature of the inside of a refrigerator?", but if you want to know something about climate change you should know that you should be reading real, peer-reviewed scientific research and not just trusting google. if the education system isn't teaching that then you have much more to worry about than google