<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Open Parenthesis]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://www.openparenthesis.org]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[John]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[http://www.openparenthesis.org/author/admin/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[90% of Everything is Crud]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[Although there is some disagreement about whether the final word should be "crap,"  <a target="_blank" title="Wikipedia (Sturgeon's Law)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law">Sturgeon's Revelation</a> says that "Ninety percent of everything is crud."

<!--more-->In context, Sturgeon was defending science fiction against the claims of highbrow critics - by demonstrating the obvious but often overlooked fact that simply showing bad examples of a given genre does not damn the genre as a whole.

For example, the fact that I can find lazily architected, poorly designed, and miserably coded open source software (and one certainly can) does not mean open source itself is inherently flawed as a model. (The same being true, of course, for closed or proprietary source software - there may be problems with either model, but the mere existence of crap doesn't prove the existence of those problems, let alone demonstrate that the problems inevitably lead to crap.)

I was reminded of Sturgeon's Rrevelation in reading Andrew McAfee's <a target="_blank" title="Wising Up about Dumbing Down" href="http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/faculty_amcafee_v3/wising_up_about_dumbing_down/">Wising Up about Dumbing Down</a>, in which he takes on the sometimes unspoken, sometimes quite explicit fear that this whole inter-web thing is making us all stupid:
<blockquote>The question is, is this development to be welcomed or decried? The decriers most common worry is one of dumbing downÃ¢â‚¬â€that Web 2.0 is yielding a sea of bad online content that threatens to drown the good.</blockquote>
It didn't take Web 2.0 to have this conversation, of course. My first dose of the "spend too long reading X and you will begin to worry about the intelligence of the general population" came from flame-wars on <a title="Slashdot" href="http://www.slashdot.org/">Slashdot</a>, and before that <a title="Usenet" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet">Usenet</a>, and before that BBS systems (and before that, High School). Spend a few hours on <a title="YouTube" target="_blank" href="http://youtube.com/">YouTube</a>, or <a title="MySpace" target="_blank" href="http://myspace.com/">MySpace</a>, and tell me you don't start to worry about the future of the planet. (Maybe this only works if you're over 30? Over 35?).

You'll find some gems, of course - but you'll also find a heck of a lot of crud.

As <a target="_blank" title="Tom Mandel" href="http://www.connectbeam.com/">others</a> have commented on McAfee's blog, the same arguments were made about the broadening of access to knowledge accorded by movable type (<a target="_blank" title="Movable Type" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type">this</a> one, not <a target="_blank" title="Movable Type" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_Type">this one</a>).

We seem doomed to be perpetually excited about the new, more democratic (you still, after all, have to be online) media and scared to death that it will make us dumber.]]></html></oembed>