O.K., it's been a while since I've checked in with our little "truth" experiment, but it appears that we're still holding in the top ten for google ranking (top five in google.ca). (Oh yeah, and if you're new to this, this is essentially a google bombing exercise attempting to raise a definition of "truth" high on google).
As well, if there's anything I've picked up from this exercise is that kitsch and non sequiturs are the things that ultimately rule on the web. I say this, because most of the dialogue and debate (and therefore activity that ultimately led to the current google ranking) was spurred by the initial statement about Wilco (see previous edits of the truth here).
We started off with:
"Wilco is good."
And it has meandered its way to the current statement, which reads:
"Wilco is good, sometimes exceptional, but often inconsequential."
This was of such note, that I feel compelled to give this phenomenon a name (which maybe will halfway stand-up because I happen to be an academic of sorts?) Let's call it The Wilco Effect.
That is, the phenomenon where viral propagation of information on the internet is often spurred by things like kitsch; things with an element of the non-sequitur; things that are, relatively speaking, trivial in premise; and yet (this is where perhaps Wilco factors in), these are also things that a significant proportion of the audience feels are of exemplary quality.
Of course, there's probably a term for this already. If so, let's just hope it doesn't involve something like Chuck Norris or Paris Hilton.
As well, in a attempt to see if we can continue to climb on the google rankings for truth, I've edited some, and added a few extra lines to create some debate. These include:
"On the whole, disorder increases"
"SUV's are just stupid"
and to test this Wilco Effect out a little bit, let's also throw in,
"R2D2 would easily beat Chewbaccca in a fight"
Anyway, you can continue to help out the truth experiment by using the following code:
This also includes having a go with the discussion by leaving a comment or URL (where your own dialogue has taken place) here.
- Log in to post comments
You state a theories and opinions are fact. You can support theories and opinions, but proving them is impossible.
Not if thems ares the truths.
If this is your way of clogging the net with stupidity, you are highly successful.
Hey Stan,
My reply is "sort of." In that if anything, this type of exercise only further demonstrates that "stupid" things thrive on the internet. Seems to me that working within that context (however unworthy it might sound) might be something that has utility when trying to engage, educate, or communicate with the public.
Hi - I agree, David. Many people start with Google when looking for information. And since it's easier than writing something original, I've also linked to the truth experiment. It's still in the top five on google.fr, by the way.
I would argue with Stan that the net can be clogged, but I'm more concerned about the idea of stupidity. While not useful in terms of a research tool per se, the portions of the net that are frivolous and sometimes distract from "work" can be helpful by stimulating the creativity that is necessary to solve problems. Often by taking a break and getting away from the problem, the fresh perspective offered is what leads to the solution.
incorrect. Gin is much better than whiskey.