The Bickerstaff Papers

I've been thinking about Web 2.0 and "The Cult of the Amatuer." There were some interesting posts on this earlier this week .I got to thinking about how easy it is for people to post incorrect information. According to Keen, if we rely on a professional, print media, the information would be much more reliable.

Which brings me to my point. Way back in the 1700's, Johnathan Swift (one of my favorite authors) wrote a pamphlet (under the pen name Isac Bickerstaff). Swift hated the abuses of astrology, and as a satirist, wrote and published several predictions of his own - including one predicting the death of John Partridge, one of the most celebrated astrologers in England at the time. Partridge owned a major astrology publication at the time.
Swift, predicted the death to occur on March 29Th, 1708. On March 30Th, under a different pen name he published another pamphlet praising the accomplishments of Bickerstaff's predictions - including the death of Partridge. Partridge put out his magazine and pointed out that he was still alive. Bickerstaff (Swift), published still another pamphlet providing proof of Partridge's death and claimed the current publisher was an impostor trying to live off of Partridge's good name. Partridge lost readers in droves and ended up bankrupt - never knowing who Bickerstaff really was.

So my question is, other than using a digital format, have things really changed that much? People chose to believe what they want to believe.

As the English SOL's have as one of their goals, the ability to read and understand print media. One thing we need is something that teaches students to read for validity as well.

How do you think they will test that?