Given the title, Wineberg's main argument is that historical thinking is not just about all the facts we can obtain to become more educated. We can be able to state a bunch of facts and statistics, but this is not history, this is not thinking because we are not even considering where we are getting this information from. Rather, historical thinking is a skill and active process. Historical thinking involves critical analysis of the sources we use to obtain our information. In this sense, we are actively thinking by examining the authority of sources that make historical claims. We can feed ourselves with knowledge, but we can see how these facts are significant when we discover how sources were written, constructed, and came to be. Wineberg is making a general claim about the evaluation sources in general, but most examples come from those of historical events because history depends a lot upon accuracy, reality, truth, and claims because we need evidence to prove events that we were not alive or present to experience.
Wineberg supports his claim that we must work to achieve historical accuracy by comparing older new generations to newer generations in their trustworthiness of sources. For example, he emphasizes that back in his historical context, people had to get their information from libraries. As he puts it, libraries were naturally credible: "Back in the uncomplicated pre-Web days, libraries and archives were places of quiet stability and authority" (Wineberg 14). However, in today's age, the easy access to obtaining and publishing information significantly reduces credibility of sources: "The Internet has obliterated authority. You need no one's permission to create a website. You need no papers signed to put up a YouTube Video. You need no one's stamp of approval to post a picture on Instagram" (Wineberg 14). Wineberg is basically emphasizing that published print has gone through professional processes such as peer reviews and academic reviews to make sure the information is presentable and accurate, but the Internet has less of that process, so our new generation must work to be aware of this fact. He has worked with youth and questioned their trustworthiness of claims and evidence to further enhance his point.
I have always been taught in school that basically not everything we read on the internet is true. Just because the internet says so doesn't make it real. Especially when I came to college, we started doing a lot of work on evaluating the credibility of sources through being asked to complete annotated bibliographies Because I was already aware of this, Wineberg just emphasized this reality for me even more. I too think that Google searches that appear higher are more credible because that's just the way the human mind understands it. For some reason, I just naturally think that when I read something that's typed and published, it's probably true, but of course it's not. Wineberg's article emphasizes the easy access to publishing powers that everyone has. For example, anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Fake news is such a large issue today. I don't even know who Trump is anymore because the media, filled with bias and existing issues, continues to distort and influence my perspectives. Wineberg's article will definitely make me more aware of my process of web surfing, and I will remember his words in the back of my head.
Wineberg supports his claim that we must work to achieve historical accuracy by comparing older new generations to newer generations in their trustworthiness of sources. For example, he emphasizes that back in his historical context, people had to get their information from libraries. As he puts it, libraries were naturally credible: "Back in the uncomplicated pre-Web days, libraries and archives were places of quiet stability and authority" (Wineberg 14). However, in today's age, the easy access to obtaining and publishing information significantly reduces credibility of sources: "The Internet has obliterated authority. You need no one's permission to create a website. You need no papers signed to put up a YouTube Video. You need no one's stamp of approval to post a picture on Instagram" (Wineberg 14). Wineberg is basically emphasizing that published print has gone through professional processes such as peer reviews and academic reviews to make sure the information is presentable and accurate, but the Internet has less of that process, so our new generation must work to be aware of this fact. He has worked with youth and questioned their trustworthiness of claims and evidence to further enhance his point.
I have always been taught in school that basically not everything we read on the internet is true. Just because the internet says so doesn't make it real. Especially when I came to college, we started doing a lot of work on evaluating the credibility of sources through being asked to complete annotated bibliographies Because I was already aware of this, Wineberg just emphasized this reality for me even more. I too think that Google searches that appear higher are more credible because that's just the way the human mind understands it. For some reason, I just naturally think that when I read something that's typed and published, it's probably true, but of course it's not. Wineberg's article emphasizes the easy access to publishing powers that everyone has. For example, anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Fake news is such a large issue today. I don't even know who Trump is anymore because the media, filled with bias and existing issues, continues to distort and influence my perspectives. Wineberg's article will definitely make me more aware of my process of web surfing, and I will remember his words in the back of my head.
Comments
Post a Comment