Every now and
then
, we might find ourselves dealing with a situation where our expertise and knowledge are not sufficient to take a pick of all the options and courses available,
thus
feeling compelled to recourse to other people or books and articles published by them. The Internet, an ever-growing generator and instant provider of knowledge on all sorts of matters, is by all means a source we have all consulted at times, yet the unfettered growth of it and the lack of control over the (mis
information
disseminated on its platforms on a
secondly
basis have cast a significant doubt over its reliability and whether we should still solicit the
advice
of an expert when we need consultation.
Invented in the 80s, the Internet has expanded exponentially from being available to a minor group of people to an all-pervasive phenomenon. Today, it represents the most important source of
information
for most people. News updates, an assigned school research on geography, the side effects of taking an emergency pill before having an intercourse are but a few examples which may prompt people of different demographics and concerns to consult the Internet. As common as it is today, there are a number of challenges that warrant our attention with regard to the reliability and sufficiency of
information
logged somewhere on its platforms.
First
and foremost, the data stored on the Internet
barely, if at all, subject to verification and authentication. “You can set up a blog under a fictitious name or a channel on Telegram and spread your speculative
information
on how to get
for a post-graduate course
for instance
…” says Robert Danish, a data analyst from Google.
This
form of
information
democracy, I think, poses a great threat to the fundamental principles and ethics around which the Internet was initiated in the
first
place,
that is
to ease access to
information
to everyone—not misinformation.
Thus
, if compelled to use the Internet, you should attempt to receive
information
from the most trusted sources that undergoes strict editing prior to their publishing.
Secondly
, the
information
available on websites, channels and groups are mostly raw data which require interpretation and application to the actual problem an individual
.
This
, undoubtedly, merits the expertise of a qualified practitioner. So, you better think twice and pay enough heed to the warning on the effects of drugs you have bought because your auntie referred you to a health
advice
blog and seek adequate consultation
first
.
When it comes to soliciting the assistance of people, the issue remains equally fluid. Ordinary people have a need for self-esteem and
egos. These qualities may cause them to assume possession of knowledge and skills that they actually do not, and,
as a result
, are as likely as the Internet to be a culprit for the spread of misinformation.
Moreover
, failing to comply with ethical standards and continuing professional development requirements, and lack of objectivity may render their
advice
destructive. Imagine a lawyer in his 50s who has made no sustained effort to stay abreast of the latest developments in laws and practices and compare his
information
with that released on a weekly law podcast hosting state-approved experts. Which one would you trust more? I would trust the latter for sure.
The question of which source—humans or computers—is more reliable has no single answer. The Internet per
se
is not the ultimate encyclopedia we can rely on in all
, nor is an expert regardless of all his qualifications and experience. Though I recommend
judgment and maintain
skepticismdoubt about the truth of something
when receiving
information
or
advice
from either source and attempt to interpret each in the light the other and
analyzeconsider in detail and subject to an analysis in order to discover essential features or meaning
the inconsistencies so as to come up with the best decision possible.
