Talk:Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Is Google Making Us Stupid? has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 8, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 11, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 12, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Nicholas Carr wrote a controversial article titled "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" in the July/August 2008 edition of The Atlantic Monthly?

Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Magazines Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Google Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Google To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

Archives: 1

Great work

Nice to see a detailed overview of this essay is available. Nicholas Carr's got a book coming out in June 2010... The Shallows... same subject. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nietzsche lingua (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a testament to the quality of the article that it attracts so many new and diverse contributors willing to improve it further! Skomorokh, barbarian 19:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Skomorokh - why was the author banned? he is obviously very skillful. thanks in advance for your reply. --80.9.165.218 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is neither Google nor the Internet

I think we need some serious criticism about Nicholas G. Carr's focus, as it misses the entire point. The problem has to do with how we use the Internet, not the Internet itself. Silicon Valley is aware that the "Google" paradigm, or the w3, is only an interim step between the desktop and pervasive computing models that will extend information into every aspect of our lives, and embed itself into the very fabric of reality (cf. Asimoz's Gaia and Cameron's Pandora). This is difficult for some people to envision when they don't understand technology, but it makes perfect sense when you think it all the way through. This means, essentially, that hardware disappears. The real underlying problem that needs to be addressed has to do with the neuroergonomics of augmented cognition, an issue that nobody wants to discuss. The real issue isn't how our brain is changing in response to the Internet, but how we will use it to swim through a new ocean of information that becomes an extension of who and what we are. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy journalsim

The infobox claims this essay (and the argument in general) is categorized as advocacy journalism. I find that difficult to believe. Any evidence for this POV? Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this diff and its surrounding edits, it looks like this category was changed from "opinion journalism" to "advocacy journalism" based on something the user read on a blog, but that's just a guess. I'm curious though, is this truly advocacy journalism? Because Carr does not seem to be advocating anything. He's exploring a question and looking at history and science to get an answer. He's really not advocating for either side. Yes, he's openly critical of technology in his work, but this isn't advocacy, this is healthy skepticism. Viriditas (talk)

oh, the irony...

Does anyone other than I find this WP article to be ironic? One of Carr's points is that we today are losing the capacity, if not the will, to read long textual arguments (e.g., books). Yet Carr's article is about 80% the length of this WP article (~4200 words v. ~5200 words [not counting all the notes, ex-links, and bib, cats, etc., typical of a WP page]). So if Carr is right, we should prefer his original article to this <lengthy> analysis. Just food for thought .... RedJ 17 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RedJ 17: I think for the most part, over time, Carr's argument (which he explores in even more detail in his book and other articles) has proven to be not only correct but supported and substantiated by current research.[1] This article is longer than his original article because Wikipedia prefers to write about topics using secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]