> The internet wasn't the harbinger of a new Enlightenment, but often does the opposite: it proliferates ignorance.
And yet we have the highest rates of literacy ever, and Wikipedia is one the most visited sites ever: Amusing how someone can make blanket claims without checking the data.
How you make the leap from "ignorance" to "illiteracy" -- especially when I mention the internet (where literacy would be a prerequisite) seems disingenuous. There's a lot of evidence showing that internet "siloing" exacerbates phenomena like the Dunning–Kruger effect[1][2]. I know this is a controversial opinion (especially here on HN), but I don't think Wikipedia is a net positive for society. It democratizes knowledge in the worst possible way and its bias (which ranges from the far left, to the far right -- although more often the former -- depending on the article) is obvious to anyone with a discerning eye. There's a reason you can't cite Wikipedia in college (or heck, even high school) papers.
Yes, for those old enough to remember a time when research for a school project required hitting the library stacks, encyclopedias were never acceptable sources after about grade 6.
And yet we have the highest rates of literacy ever, and Wikipedia is one the most visited sites ever: Amusing how someone can make blanket claims without checking the data.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-w...
Let's not proliferate ignorance further.