Don’t get me wrong, both in my mind have their benefits (and drawbacks). But in today's highly connected society where information (and the knowledge created by having it)is time sensitive, soft information (coupled with the ability to know how to validate it) has become a highly desirable commodity.
In looking back through my posts here on LibraryBytes, I can see that I’ve offered up some thoughts in this area on several occasions. But I think my best thoughts were summed up here.
“But with information these days being more time sensitive then ever and online networks providing the conduit to transform tiny social grapevines into full-fledged vineyards for mass media consumption, the need to figure out the means to authenticate and validate soft information will become more important than ever.
Just because the source of the information comes from a user generated blog or a wiki doesn’t necessarily mean it should automatically discredited. It merely means that a different set of skills and criteria need to be applied in order to validate it."
Read the full post if you're interested in the rest of my rant.
On a personal note, it’s funny to look back on posts you’ve written over two years and realize that your opinions haven’t changed. Most of the time, I find when I look back on a idea or posted thought that I wrote nearly two years that my opinion has grown or been morphed a bit by the rapid changes in society, technology and/or the digital space. But in this case, it hasn’t … :(