If you could absorb all the information on Wikipedia into your brain in an instant, would you?
Asked by
Hobbes (
7371
)
December 1st, 2011
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
46 Answers
Will the rest of my brain remain intact, in terms of information? Then, yes
That would be a “Brain Fart”.
Meaning, transfered in a second and staying forever? Yes. Meaning, transfered but not staying for more than an instant? No.
Do I want all of my knowledge based on learning and experience replaced by random trivia edited by twelve year olds? No thanks,
If it were all actually true, yes.
But given that Wikipedia is “truth by consensus” as opposed to actual fact, I think I will pass.
I would take the equivalent of all the knowledge in Wikipedia, but I would want it from better sources.
Would we be able to sort the information and know it is from wikipedia? Then yes. If it is integrated into our knowledge without a distinct memory of it being from wikipedia, then no.
I agree with jerv, since there is no way to prove the veracity of the facts, I would not want to absorb everything in wikipedia. Now if you had said Encyclopedia Britannica, I would say yes in a heart beat.
Why have it in my brain when I already have it at my fingertips? No.
No. There is good info on Wikipedia. There is also crap. I would rather be a bit more discerning about the garbage I actually file in my brain.
Nope. I love that feeling of when I learn something new through my own investigation & discovery. I’d be bored as hell if there was nothing new to find.
@Tropical_Willie, you can crush up & snort a Beano to prevent that, no?
Hmmm…with al that info, all those citations, all those links, my brain would be pretty crowded. Would I be able to tell wheather or not the info was accurate? Or would I always be saying to people, “I read this somewhere, and I don’t know if it’s true, but for what it’s worth…”
I was about to utter an unqualified yes, because, hell, you never really know how much of what you remember learning is true, or if you indeed ,remember it correctly. After all, if you aren’t sure if it’s true, you could always dig deeper and find out. To have the recall of all that info would be incredibly liberating. Think of all the connections you could make and all the inspiration you could have!
The point that rpm pseud0name makes is a good one though. It sort of puts a stop to that sense of discovery. And to me, that sense of discovery is intoxicating! It’s a hard call. I’ll get back to you.
You know, sure there’s a lot of misinformation on Wikipedia. But does anyone think it is more than the misinformation we already have in our heads? I’m betting it would be a far superior situation to have all of Wiki’s knowledge and sometimes be wrong rather than be wrong as often as we all already are.
If I knew it all, then I couldn’t learn anything.
Life is learning… It’s about the journey… not the destination.
Wikipedia is far from knowing it all. It would just give you a huge step forward on your journey.
As long as Kung Fu is included. Do I think it’s air I’m breathing? Do I???
No. Waaay too much chaf in the wiki wheat. lol
Nope.
Wikipedia might be 99% of the most delicious bacon double cheeseburger in the world but the little pieces of poop in it that make up the other 1% are a deal breaker.
I try to avoid eating poop whenever possible no matter what the dose.
Without a doubt. But then I would be spammed with false facts and misleading information… and yes I’m disliking wikipedia.
If I could do that, then I assume that I could also absorb knowledge that was stored/shared/presented/documented from other sources and people. I’d greatly consider my options before turning to Wiki’s.
Absolutely! What reason would I have not to?
I wouldn’t want my brain filled with all that. It’s not information and facts that is so important to me. It’s understanding how things work. I don’t really need a lot of information if I can predict how things will come out based on the models that exist in my mind of how things work.
I think if I had all of wikipedia in there, I could hardly think. Thinking is more important than facts.
Why would I want to absorb so much incorrect information?
@bkcunningham not according to my GFs college instructors. Her term paper must have 2 sources for information, neither of which can be Wiki. If she chooses to use wikipedia as a source she must have 4 other independant sources that confirm the data.
@WestRiverrat Wikipedia should not be used as a source, but as a source of sources. Reliable articles will have references.
Nope. Junk is junk, you are what you eat, absorb or whatever.
No, Wikipedia can be altered by anyone in this world at any time. I find it a waste of brain space to be retaining information that is inaccurate or completely made up. I do find Wikipedia to be a good source at times,when you need a quick recap of something but that’s really all it’s good for.
I will alter the question to suppose that the information in Wikipedia is accurate. How would the information be stored? We don’t store information like computers. Our brains are not just fact warehouses. There are pathways from one memory to the next. We have emotional reactions to much of it. The constructivist theory of learning says that we actively build knowledge based on experience and prior knowledge. In other words, you can’t just stuff information into the brain.
We could easily replace Wikipedia in this question with Fox News. You fools (for those who said yes).~
@cockswain A nightly game of Trivial Pursuit would help you kick ass on Jeopardy too. =)
@jonsblond Either way, I’d love to be able to recall everything I’ve ever seen quickly and easily. I’d be the man!
No, sometimes the funnest part of the journey is getting there.
No Wikipedia has a lot of b.s to say in the very least.
@bluejay Ah, but if you read @Aethelflaed‘s link several posts earlier, perhaps you’ll feel differently! Or anyone for that matter.
Somehow my post got truncated. What I wanted to point out is that we do not store information the same way that computers do. Even if we assume that Wikipedia is completely accurate, how would the information be placed in our brains? There is a theory of learning called constructivism, which makes a lot of sense to me. It says that we take an active role in learning, that we establish connections between various pieces of knowledge and sometimes develop an emotional response to them. I can picture having a chip in our heads that contains the Wikipedia and which we could access similarly to how we currently access Wikipedia, but that is not the same thing as truly assimilating all that information.
@WestRiverrat, I linked a wiki article verifying how reliable wiki is as a source.
Answer this question 
