That and "Maybe journalists will do proper research again".

This guy has some decent points but in the end has his head so far up his, well you get the idea. The internet is far from 'shit'. Here in America it is single handedly saving our political system because the only way anyone can get any sort of information is through the internet. That doesn't mean that ALL information on the internet is always right. Far from it, but to cast aside the entire internet, THE ENTIRE INTERNET, because there is a lot noise is just nonsense. Its so much more than just political too. All kinds of people with all kinds of interests can connect in ways never before. In the end its always how one USES the tool, not the tool itself. How about a bet, if you think the internet is 'shit' lets log every site you go to. If you go to anywhere close to visiting 10%of every website in the entire world, I'll give you a $10. If not, you have to retract your statement because to even suggest you have seen it all and have the right and ability to judge it all is just, well, 'shit'.

Well in all honesty, I think this article isn't trying to say the Internet is inherently shitty, but more subjectively shitty. By that, I mean it appears the way people approach the information presented, and the way we value it has turned an otherwise incredible resource into a vague, hard to define collection of data. By that argument, some of what he says makes sense.

Take for example modern academia's persistent fear of Wikipedia. It's almost like it's threatening their way of life and their authority on the rite of passage of knowledge.

Maybe I'm just crazy though, but I only agree with him in the sense that so-called "experts" still have a distrust of the Internet, and the trust we put in them lowers the value of everything that truly matters.