Merril Medelin Handrawan

13201910018

1. What is the topic of the article? What issues are addressed?

The article discusses about declining effect social media causes to knowledge, mainly
pertaining to the steady drop of Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia, a live collaboration
differing from paper-based reference sources, has seen a steady drop of contributors
over the years. Although there are successful efforts to sustain Wikipedia, largely
thanks to American liberals who fear the growing decay of Enlightenment ideals
globally that Donald Trump arguably evoked, the underlying problem sadly still exists –
that people in general simply aren't interested anymore to the pursue of knowledge.

2. What is the writer's stance about the topic? Is he for or against it? What's the
evidence?
It is quite clear that the author seems apprehensive if not dejected, as can be seen
from the way he laid out ample supporting evidence throughout the article. He started
all the way back to the Islamic Golden Age where Islamic scholars “ set themselves to
collecting and documenting all existing information on a wide wariety of topics,
including translations from Greek, Persian, Syrian, and Indian into Arabic”. European
thinkers who are birthed by the inception of enlightenment values during the 18 th
century, such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Montequieu who “were involved in the editing
of the the work … ended up in prison” due to the growing unease from the religious
ruling class. In more recent times, the rise of television entertainment “introduced not
just a new medium but a new discourse: a gradual shift from a typographic culture to a
photographic one, which in turn meant a shift from rationality to emotions, exposition to
entertainment” as the author quoted Neil Postman in his 1985 book Amusing
Ourselves to Death. This disheartening assertion suggests an intriguing transfer of
similar trend happening in social media where “the medium refocuses our attention on
videos and images, rewarding emotional appeals – 'like' buttons – over rational ones.”.
Originally, internet was created as a “tool to pursue knowledge not pleasure”. This fact
strikes a clear disparity from the age of blogs, discussion groups, Google search and
its text-based advertising model, and literature to social media which “reduces our
curiousity by showing us exactly what we already want and think, based on our profiles
and preferences”.

3. What is the writer's conclusion?

When most of the world's population seems more enthralled with scrolling through
Facebook posts or Instagram stories, it's hard not to notice the struggle of the
preservation of knowledge for non-profit companies such as Wikipedia in a world
where appearances matter more than genuineness. The looming days ahead may feel
foreboding, but it is still paramount to bring awareness because the future is at stake.

4. What does the author use to support the argument? Faith, opinion, fact, or theories?
The author utilizes all of the above – Faith, opinion, fact, and theories – whether it is his
own or other's. Right from the beginning he explained the foundation of his argument,
the fact that Wikipedia itself is in trouble, “but ironically thanks to Donald Trump,
Wikipedia has never been as wealthy or well-organized.”. Based on that he argues that
“the very idea of knowledge itself is in danger”. He chronicled the journey of modern
encyclopedias, that was initiated by Islamic scholars and undertake hardships through
 the boom that spread across Europe that is the Enlightenment value. The author also
theorizes that the “Enlightenment's motto of 'Dare to know' has become 'Dare not to
care to know.'”. Despite all this, the writer asserts that “This doesn't mean it is time to
give up”, thus encouraging his readers to keep faith.

5. What's the writer's tone? What adjective would you give to describe the writer's attitude
in the article? Explain what made you think so.
The author sounds disheartened and critical about the seemingly defeat of knowledge
against social media. He blames social media and television as the reasons for the
downward slide of rational thinking and the abilty to think for ourselves, arguing that
“(Social media) reduces our curiousity by showing us exactly what we already want
and think”.

6. In paragraph 9, the writer writes:

“From Facebook to Instagram, the medium refocuses our attention on videos and
images, rewarding emotional appeals – 'like' buttons – over rational ones..”
Why does the writer say these statements? Is it an opinion or a fact?
It is undeniable that every thing we do has to be motivated by something – anything.
Usually, it is to gain something, satiate an appetite that is innately within each of us.
Some call this the “animal instinct”. We humans are just like a pack of dogs, or rather
Pavlov’s dogs, and come running for rewards. In my opinion, perhaps the writer is trying to
argue that 'like' buttons enforces this instinct by rewarding us as we happily peruse the
endless collection of media and post contents, or 'conditioned' (depends on how you
look at it) by social media.

7. Does the writer seem biased or objective about the topic? Are there any language
barriers or fallacies? What's the evidence?
There are a lot of slippery slope argument that the writer takes on. In paragraph 3, the
writer argues that “a flattening growth rate in the number of contributors to the website
… is another troubling sign of a general trend around the world: The very idea of
knowledge itself is in danger”. It is an unsubstantiated claim, a common thing in the
article, and it borders on doomsday-scenario-without-the-solution type of
fearmongering. Google gets a pass for its “text-based advertising model”, while “social
media” gets indicted with an anecdote about narcissism on Instagram and Facebook.
The writer ignores how Google monopolizes the internet than almost any other
company, ever. Google has been fined by the European Commision for violating
antitrust rules. The company makes up over 90% of market share in Europe. That's not
best news for objective knowledge. At the time of this writing, searches of Taylor Swift
and Kim Kardashian are trending. The writer needs to present some much more
compelling evidence that social media is behind this shift away from “knowledge” and
that Google is somehow not. And by making a strong claim that “(Social media) reduce
our curiousity...”. Is it a measurable reduction in curiousity across the board for
Facebook users? What if someone uses facebook for as a means of intellectual
exchange?

8. Overall, why do you think the writer chose this topic in the first place? What was his
purpose? What did he want you to believe?
I think it comes from an honest place that knowledge, or rather the pursuit of it, is
deteriorating, due to what the author believe as the rise of social media. He wants us to
 believe that the “decline of the web and Wikipedia” is the cause of the decline of
knowledge and society itself.

9. Overall, what do you think of the article? Do you agree or disagree with the writer?
Explain.
The article portrays a very distorted view of the past vs. the present. It portrays the
push for encyclopedic collation of textual knowledge, in the past, and social media, in
the present, as if they were complete, represent pictures of all the attitudes within
societies towards information and knowledge in the respective time periods. As if low-
quality discussions and communication mediums weren't widespread in the past, and
as if there were no other ways that knowledge is treated these days. There are
hundreds if not thousands of social media platforms designed for learning and
intellectual collaboration. The article also fails to mention the problem within Wikipedia.
Wikipedia itself is a social media platform. Contributors have shared their bad
experiences of having their edits reversed due to a politically-biased administrators.
Basically, Wikipedia isn't quite there yet despite being the leading online encyclopedia.