I wouldn't say that the Internet has changed my trust level per se. I've learned to approach the Net and Net-culture with a healthy sense of skepticism but that hasn't carried over to how I engage in the real world necessarily.

Mendalla

I approach the internet much the same way as I approach books.  Some information is factual/truthful, some biased, some outright junk, and hopefully some pearls of wisdom.

I'm careful about sources, especially since I spent years teaching research techiniques to students....kinda carries over.

I'm careful about what I post on facebook, and even here on Wondercafe.

Internet hasn't changed my trust level, but probably made me more careful with searches.  For example, if I'm checking out product information such as a new car, I can bet that some car ads will appear when I visit sites which is OK, but might be embarassed by ads from other visited sites....especially if a friend is loooking over my shoulder.

I don't think the internet is making trust obsolete.  Probably a little bit of the opposite when it comes to things like social media.  If I see a post on my husband's wall by some girl, I don't feel the need to demand how he knows her, but I know some people who are like that.

Sometimes I probably trust the internet a little too much.  Wikipedia has vastly improved in the last few years IMO, and sometimes that leads me to be much more lax when it comes to critiquing the information.  In it's earlier days, the quality often led me to automatically question the information.

I am not one who believes everything I read though.  When I came across the article, this cartoon also came to mind pretty quickly:

As I think (no data to support my estimate though!) that there's more misinformation on the internet than correct information.

Over time, I've also become less trusting about what will happen with my personal information that is posted.  Yet, I still post things that I wouldn't want splashed across a newspaper all together.

I've always been rather open about my identity online. Occasionally, I feel that wasn't the right move, such as when I piss off some rather unstable people. Using a combination of math and sarcasm, I helped bury a multi-million dollar financial pyramid scam, and got a few threats of violence and legal action, and one scam founder messaging me for my contact info. Thankfully, these weren't bright people, because it wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world to find me.

But otherwise, I trust that using my identity and telling the truth about things won't lead to a bad outcome.

As for how others present themselves, my skepticism rises based on two factors: How outlandish do they sound, and how deeply would I be impacted if they are lying?

For example, in the case of the financial scam, a friend asked me about it, and I immediately saw it as a scam. but because good people who are bad at math could be affected, I debunked it in many places online, and had some fun at the expense of scammers. Conversely, if someone makes a medical claim that sounds good for my boy but could be a disaster if it's quackery or it backfires, I'm immediately skeptical and look for holes in the claims.

Come to think of it, that's all science is: Someone comes up with a neat claim that seems to work, and others spend years trying to disprove it before they'll begrudgingly accept it and buy first guy a beer. This is unlike a biblically-based claim, which is assumed correct until someone debunks it, and sometimes long after someone debunks it.

When it's a forum, I tend to trust that the personal stories people are telling are genuine, unless they give me reason to be skeptical. Life's too short to go around worrying if people online are genuine. Besides, people who lie online seem to screw up regularly. Lies change. The truth seldom does.

People love to dump on Wikipedia, but it is a fantastic resource. For simple arguments, it's a good start. Snopes is another that is rarely proven wrong. I wouldn't bet the farm on either, but certainly a car.

I agree that wikipedia is great for a start.  I don't know about betting a car on it.  Snopes, maybe :)

Hi chemgal,

To the dame degree that I trust everything else, I guess.  As a whole entity the internet is what it is, a mix of information, interpretation of that information (some is stellar and others less so), and invention.

Site by site I find the various points of interest within the internet to be much like the various people I may meet throughout the day.

Probably more skeptical just due to the fact that there are many, many, many sites which plagiarize the work of other people (whether it be worthy of duplication or not) and searches can return several thousand hits of almost exactly the same crap.  For some strange reason the most stuff I have found most reliable is rarely plagiarized.

I wonder if there is a way to determine the speed of falsity or the rate at which venom replicates?

Grace and peace to you.

John

John,

So true about the plagarism!  I get tired of seeing the same articles written by 'professionals', yet the authors are different every time.

It is almost comical when foolish forwarded e-mails come along from trusting friends such as the one that claimed it will be100 + years until the next July that has 3 Fridays, 3 Saturdays and 3 Sundays, or the mismatched photos a few years ago of Mars and the Moon related to the closest approach of Earth to Mars in many years.

It is agravating when the forwarded e-mails are hate-based misrepresentations of some reality.

It is sad and funny when famous people are rumoured to have died.

It is tragic when people with apparently sound science credentials are sources of bizarre science info.