The Genius with dementia (some online fish hobby archaeology)

[GaryE]

The Genius with dementia. That's how I often see the Internet, since I've been online since 1990, and I confess, my first search was for what was available to talk about fish. There were fish sites from the get go, even before there were images on the internet.

I'm like a loop and always end up saying you have to check all fish species by species and do your homework before you buy. Homework is hard because there are a lot of low quality websites we can find and take as credible. We have to unlearn the old mentality we had from the book era, when there were fact checking Ichthyologists going over the stuff I wrote before it would be published. You could disagree with what was written, but it had its own grounding in that system. That system is gone, and we're still looking at written text as credible because it's written down. We have to to be more skeptical and critical thinking, and that is work, especially since this is a hobby we do for fun.

Still, Aqua-Advisor, fishbase, Seriously Fish and a fair number of group specific websites exist. A lot more have vanished over the years. I'm not even counting the dozens of info-rich forums that have bitten the dust. I'm looking more at cases like the following:

There was a European killie guy who decided to build a website detailing his favourite group of fish, and I used his developing resource a lot around 2000. He was a relatively young guy with a knack for photography and a serious work ethic and his site was becoming quite something, until he suddenly and unexpectedly died. Within weeks, his family stopped paying for the site and it was gone. I suspect that has happened to a lot of more focused sites.

It's a funny system. It used to be if I wrote a book and it got published, I would get royalties after. Now, I would have to pay to keep the website up. What are some cool sites you used to use for fish info that either vanished, or stopped being updated? Are there once solid youtube sources that have turned off the lights and gone home?

 

[Ichthys]

Two that spring immediately to mind are The Malawi Cichlid Homepage, which disappeared after it’s creator died (a Greek guy called George) and OPEFE, which was my go-to site for Serrasalmid info, which has also finally gone, since Frank Magallanes died.

The internet is great because it enables forums to exist, but looking for information on it is a minefield for beginners, because there’s more rubbish on it than accurate information. Books were a much surer bet. Very few authors would bother paying for a book of rubbish to be published, but it’s easy to do online… and they get ‘followers’ which seem to be important to some.

Accuracy doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Popularity is the new ‘truth’. And it’s not doing fish any favours.

 

[OnlyGenusCaps]

there were fact checking Ichthyologists going over the stuff

That system is gone, and we're still looking at written text as credible because it's written down.

Books were a much surer bet. Very few authors would bother paying for a book of rubbish to be published, but it’s easy to do online

Accuracy doesn’t seem to matter anymore. Popularity is the new ‘truth’.

These are all interesting statements that I believe speak to a greater tension in our society - When and at what level is gatekeeping beneficial? We often assume that letting the "will of the people" and the "democratization" of things to be inherent goods. On the flip side, the same people will rarely see populist movements or populism as warmly. Yet these are part and parcel of the same opening up of the gatekeeping process. Is the democratization of information always a good? Modern scientific publishing gains it's vast influence and impressive outcomes entirely based on a foundation of the gatekeeping that is peer-review. I am by no means suggesting that suppressing people's ideas and opinions is an inherent good either. Most often, it is used to repress people themselves. But, if all ideas are given the same weight, the world of knowledge ceases to exist. This is a component of the messy business of modern democracies, where individual rights must be balanced with the good of the group. A conflict I think the Internet simply mirrors and magnifies in the West (certainly China offers another version of the Internet that may well mirror and magnify their societal conflicts). I do think there are some visions of compromise that balance these well available on the internet. Cooperatively managed and non-profit efforts - Wikipedia being a well known example. Anyone can contribute, but there are gatekeepers. I will note that latter, as ever, is not without conflict here either. I proffer no firm solutions. That would be hubris. But I do think the conversation and the effort is worth it.

We have to to be more skeptical and critical thinking, and that is work

There are, unfortunately, significant physiological barriers to people succeeding at this. Issues all humans experience. Confirmation bias. Dunning-Kruger effect. Optimism bias. Loss aversion/sunk cost bias. And the list goes on. All of these are psychological barriers we erect to protect our "self" and our abilities to function in a world where we might not be as impressive as we hope. I have found that critical self-reflection is one of the most challenging endeavors to ask of an individual. It is always uncomfortable, and rarely accomplished willingly. It is for those reasons, I never believe it is a good idea to base any policy decisions on the hope people will be better than they are now. As a whole, humans are doing as best as they can. We should plan around that.

The internet is great because it enables forums to exist

While I do like forums, I have seen misinformation catch on like wildfire on forums before. Certainly, even TFF has not been entirely exempt from this. Forums are only as good as their community and their gatekeepers. So, I suppose I am suggesting good mods are like gold?