An interesting discussion evolved in our seminar two weeks ago, and I’ve had some time to think about it – has Google made us lazy? My initial reaction was “no, it has just made us efficient.” That thought has had some time to marinate and I’ve reversed my initial conclusion. However, that is not to say that I think it has made us lazy either. Rather, I think it has changed the way we process historical information.
Instead of reading articles and books to conclude which information we find pertinent, we have put our faith in a search engine to provide us with the most pertinent (dare I say most factual?) information. Is this information pertinent to everyone though? I’d say no. The search results will lead everyone who types in “Acadian expulsion” to the same information and the same conclusions about the Acadian expulsion. This does not make the first return in the Google search the most correct information though. Unfortunately, I’m beginning to think that Google may be streamlining our viewpoints. As historians we are taught to examine as many sources as possible in order to support our argument. By putting our faith in the first few Google search results, we are in fact moving away from this rule. Instead, we look for the first result which provides the ‘best’ information for our use. We no longer spend hours searching through scholarly articles, books, etc, but rather, spend the least amount of time possible.
The problem with the centralization of this mass of information is the reduction in the variety of information we internalize. Ultimately, I think the most interesting aspect of academia is the wide range of interpretations that emerge from primary and secondary sources. These interpretations may not always be correct, but they do allow us as academics to review the information presented, cross-reference it with our beliefs, and finally come to a conclusion about the veracity of the argument.
