Just for your information

With only a few weeks to go for the local elections, you know at some time my enthusiasm for democracy will soon be displayed in some shape or form. Good friends of mine often despair at my customary rallying cry on forums, blogs, social networking sites for everyone to use their vote. I've recently been trying to find new political websites which can compile information from everywhere in the political arena. Sloth is terrible habit to develop, but is aided greatly by the web.

It was then I stumbled upon politicshome, a great beta site powered with ingenious Web 2.0 technology which pulls everything political in one place. Complete with up-to-date opinion polls, politico blog updates and carefully selected articles and videos from the daily press, this site is pure Eden for any political researcher (no pun intended). You might say it is a 'bit busy' from looking at it, especially as it can run rather slowly on low spec PCs (like mine). This said however, it is a marvel to think that all the information of the day in the sphere of politics pretty much sits on that page. It is like the Big Daddy of all pizzas - with all your favourite toppings put on one crispy base to enjoy in one sitting. Yummy.

But as I drool at the prospect of this mighty meat feast of current events and happenings, something doesn't feel right. I feel overindulged - rather unworthy of such news decadence. And then it hits me - as it hits me every time I search Wikipedia - do I have too much knowledge at my fingertips? At an age where the Internet can reveal any lost detail or forgotten fact, such as the name of that drummer in some obscure 80's band, or who was the last player to miss a penalty in a FA Cup Final, we can revel in such technology to put our minds at rest and solve any disputes which are raised over a pint or two at the booozer. After all we are only human.

What worries me though is if that in the pursuit for knowledge, does curiosity really kill the cat? Do we have too much information on our beckoned call? And is the quality of the information on sites like Wikipedia something we should be basing our core understanding of certain subjects?

In the typical dystopian society born out of sci-fi novels the lack of information is usually the tried and tested method of enslaving and stupifying the masses, but can too much free-flowing information only enslave and harm the very people that contribute towards it?

My paranoia over the way we pass on these tit-bits of information I guess is born from a video game. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty has a fantastically deep, philosophically littered storyline I still thoroughly enjoy playing - but I'm sure it is a game I will never fully understand (thank God I seem to be in the majority here!).

To sum up what is a very complex storyline, a particular scene states how the Patriots (believed to be a mysterious group which are the true rulers of the world behind the puppet masters in public office) sort and filter through the human garbage of information that we produce to ensure that society remains intact. In this short exchange of words, 'The Colonel' and Rose, representations of this seemingly 'inhuman' group, are telling the protagonist Jack/Raiden how the human race is not fit to govern itself:

Colonel:	Ironic that although "self" is something that you yourself fashioned,
	every time something goes wrong, you turn around and place the blame on something else.
Rose:	It's not my fault. It's not your fault.
Colonel:	In denial, you simply resort to looking for another,
	more convenient "truth" in order to make yourself feel better.
Rose:	...leaving behind in an instant the so-called "truth" you once embraced.
Colonel:	Should someone like that be able to decide what is "truth"?
Rose:	Should someone like you even have the right to decide?
Colonel:	You've done nothing but abuse your freedom.
Rose:	You don't deserve to be free!
Colonel:	We're not the ones smothering the world. You are.
Rose:	The individual is supposed to be weak. But far from powerless --
	-- a single person has the potential to ruin the world.
Colonel:	And the age of digitized communication has given even more power to the individual.
	Too much power for an immature species.

OK OK, if I'm talking about a dystopian novel dialogue, that would probably fit the bill quite nicely; it would probably look right at home in 1984 or Brave New World. And yes, this is taken straight out of a plot line which is as incredibly Japanese as a microphone in a Downtown Tokyo bar. But those words still resonate a harsh reality of whether there is too much of an opportunity for freedom of speech on the Internet.

Take for example, the ever-growing popular and controversial viral docu-film, Zeitgeist; a damning conspiracy theory of how the world's banking corporations are working towards a Novus Ordo Mundi or One World Government by linking religion, 9/11 and the US Federal Reserve. Pretty glass-shattering stuff, which you really have to watch with an open mind. Some interesting points, but for me the jury is still out.

Anyway - a subject which fits nicely with the Metal Gear storyline above - this film has gathered quite a following online, despite hitting home the message that 9/11 was an inside job and that religion is purely a construction by 'biblical' politicians to ensure hegemonic status in society. Ideas which are met with much resistance in any social sphere. And although these ideas would face very little credibility or support in the halls of US democracy, they have a powerful base online to inform and influence.

I don't mean to discredit Zeitgeist in anyway, especially as it claims to have been produced with extensive, accurate research. With more people fuelling their theories and posting them online, we could celebrate such a diversity of free thought. But offshoots from possibly credible theories drift nearer to fantasy. The fact that some of these theories can be devised on the basis of little truth or the assumed truth from the Wikipedia does lead to a harrowing conclusion - the fact that if an unfounded idea is popular enough, it has the potential to rock society to the core. Its like spreading rumours on a larger scale - and we all know that's how fires start.

But if a "single man does have the potential to ruin the world" and that "digital communication has given more power to the individual", maybe as a species we think about smartening up a bit. And to do that, maybe when it comes to big league stuff we should give 'Wikiing' a miss from time to time.