Jeremy announces he isn't wearing a tinfoil hat.

Jeremy Smith of Hacking Christianity has recently written about how search engines (Google and others) can create an echo chamber, in which people doing Internet searches actually shape what will be found by subsequent searchers.

Okay, some of you may immediately understand what I just typed there, but I didn't. If you're like me, take an extra measure of patience and work your way through this piece. To whet your appetite for it, I'll give you the sentences that really got my attention:

I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, this is happening today.  Search for the United Methodist Church on Google and the Wikipedia entry comes up #1 (ABOVE the umc.org website! Seriously!).  Thus the publicly editable website is above the UMC-written doctrine. 

One mention of a tinfoil hat, and you have hooked this here reader, Jeremy. See his whole post here (it includes links to previous posts that lay the groundwork for the ideas he presents). Lots of stuff to consider.

(Interestingly enough, tinfoil hats have actually been proven ineffective. Might be helpful to know that someday.)

Comments

[Creed Pogue]

Like I wrote on the original post, if you actually use Wikipedia as the "fount of all human knowledge" that is a problem. Also, if you try it, the UMC website comes up first.

There is always a concern about how we get our information, but Jeremy's concern actually seems to be more about whether "dissenters" from policy voted on at General Conference (yes, THAT policy) get enough billing on the Wikipedia entry. How much space you provide for dissenters from the majority opinion is always a tough question. Making it a conspiracy does not help resolve it.

[Jnors]

When I Googled it, the Wiki entry was third...in case you're doing a study.

[UMJeremy]

Glad to have the google results checked out! Oddly enough, now unitedmethodist.org is above the wikipedia result in my searches of "United Methodist Church"...but umc.org is not even on the front page. So the highest ranking for doctrine or positions of the UMC is still Wikipedia.

@Creed Pogue, I'm sorry my post was relegated to shrill arm-waving. I believe the larger point is that effective SEO can sway google results and I asked what effect does that have on theological conversation and exploration? Any thoughts on that point?

[Creed Pogue]

Jeremy,

You wanted to reassure us that you didn't have a tinfoil hat on, but I had to admit that I wasn't so sure if you didn't at least have a beany. :-)

I'm just not so sure how much theological conversation and exploration is happening because of Wikipedia. If you are truly exploring a particular question, then you would need to be open to all the various information on the Web. Even assuming that the Web would be anything more than a jumping-off point to actually read a book. :-)

Your main example of the monopoly of thought exercised by Wikipedia and its editors is homosexuality. You would have to be a rather uninformed person to believe that there aren't people in the church with differing views about it. But, the larger question is, how much space do you give to the doctrine and rules voted on at General Conference (whether you agree with them or not) versus giving space to the fact that there are people who disagree with a particular decision.

If we're going to question authority, I believe that we need to demand accountability from GCBS about the trust fund case (was there a Board vote to authorize the litigation in the first place) and Cokesbury about its finances. In 2007, we are told that Cokesbury is fine but now it comes out that the last FOUR years worth of Cokesbury checks came out of reserves.