"Fact or Crap?"

This is a follow-up to my Nov. 16 post, "User Generated Flubb," in which I expressed skepticism toward the validity, verity, and usefulness of user generated content.

In scouring digg just now, I've come across several very interestingly-titled articles:

Is There Really Such a Thing as Time Travel? Creepy! watch!

Burger Kings's Condom Whopper Lands New Lawsuit

Huckabee called homosexuality "dangerous public health risk"

I am not suggesting that any of these articles are not fact-based, credible, and/or a benefit to society.
_____

In considering UGC as a whole, how much is our society benefited by its creation? I wouldn't say that it makes us smarter off... By reading digg rather than a non-fiction book, we end up learning a little about a lot, rather than the other way around. In my opinion, so long as you know a lot altogether and are able to use that knowledge, you're smart. Citizen journalism, micro-blogging, and social networking sites like digg, del.icio.us, and technorati impart on users information. In general, you're going to be informed, but not educated.

A lot of information is no good if there isn't any glue to hold together the pieces. Linking pieces of information together is what creates knowledge. Books link information and impart knowledge, hence my preference for them. However, perhaps the lack of knowledge is what excites readers of digg. The random bits of information are entertaining, and really not much thinking is involved because there's no need to remember anything that's read.

What baffles me is simply why so many people have such a fixation on collecting information in this fashion. I wish there was a way that they could do more than just learn a few facts in an article, but rather actually be smarter off afterwards for having read an article. When citizen journalism and UGC are guaranteed to impart knowledge and even wisdom, then I'll lose much of the skepticism that I have for it.