Google Search. Gmail. Google Reader. Google Calendar. iGoogle. Google Analytics. Google Docs. Google Notebook. YouTube.
That’s the list of all the Google products I use on a regular basis. I no longer run a search, I ‘google it’ to find what I’m looking for.
Now, Google has introduced Knol, its Wikipedia-like information base with articles ranging from health to technology. The difference is that Knol uses named contributors unlike Wikipedia where anyone can edit an entry, leading to frequent spammers. While Knol is nowhere near Wikipedia levels yet, people are already questioning whether there’s an ethical problem — will Google searches include Knol results higher to the top of the first page? I don’t think there should be much problem since, if you believe Google will favor Knol, you can just use Yahoo or another search engine instead. I personally have yet to see a Knol article come up on a Google search let alone be higher than a Wikipedia topic.
But Knol is just one example of the massive expansion Google has undertaken in the last several years and begs the question, according to a Nicholas Carr article for The Atlantic, ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid’?
Reading a lengthy article or novel used to be easy, Carr says, but now he is finding it more difficult. We are all so well acquainted with the internet now that we find the quickest way to gather information — and that means instead of spending hours reading a textbook, we read a brief summarized post or article online. (Note: I find it ironic that Carr’s essay is too lengthy for myself to read all the way through — I skimmed most of it)
Carr writes:
Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.
In his essay, Carr points out how hyperlinks propel users to click on them, instead of the traditional footnote in an article or research paper.
Which brings up another good point — should news articles, like blogs, link online to articles or sources they’ve used?
Carr’s essay created a large response from readers who wanted to simply read more about the topic, requiring him to publish a post on his blog. (It’s curious why this post hasn’t been linked somewhere in his original essay — that’d make it easier to find)
I think Carr’s essay should be viewed as the exception, not the rule, when it comes to whether links should be included in news articles. Carr’s essay was a perfect example of a case where it would be appropriate to link — because a reader could want to learn more about the topic and its not an easy topic to just Google.
But a traditional news article really should not use other news articles all too much, except for the occasional pulling from an AP thread, which then always includes a tag ‘The Associated Press contributed to this report’ at the end of any article.
Linking to a source, say a foundation used in the article isn’t really necessary and could potentially cause ‘conflict of interest’ claims. And so we’re back to Google again — a reader can easily ‘Google’ the foundation to find the Web site if they want to learn more. And there’s no real reason to link to an AP article since readers can just check Google News for the latest headlines.
For bloggers, though, I think it is absolutely required to link to other articles, since for the most part, we are not doing our own original reporting.
Some have argued that using link journalism, as it’s called, will reduce plagiarism. Tammi Marcoullier says,
When editors value link journalism and communicate to their reporters and writers that including links to their sources and giving credit where credit is due is as important as meeting a deadline, they will provide less incentive for plagiarism.
I think in some cases, Marcoullier would be correct, but why do reporters plagiarize? Is it because they are trying to meet a deadline, or is it because they simply do not want to expend the energy it would take in order to create an original piece? Repeat offenders, at least, just do not want to do their own reporting for one reason or another and I wonder if those types could ever really be changed by their editors valuing link journalism.
What I think we should tackle first is the lack of sourcing requirements at many newspapers — how many times have I read an article where I don’t know where the information actually came from — personal interview, Web site or otherwise. No more paragraphs where its not clear where the information came from and fewer unnamed sources would mean more credible and accurate articles.
