Because of the sheer amount of information online and the attention span one has while browsing, people tend to easily speed read through a work and not really digest it. How does someone like the author, or the poet Ron Silliman mentioned in the text, feel about their work being consumed in a manner that is possibly hasty and without thought, not being able to hold the text in their hand to read through? Quality, or quantity of readership, which is more important? Or is it possible to have both online?
Does posting an academic work online make it lose any credibility? Although there are proper sources for information online, there is a massive amount of false information constantly being passed around, and so how is one able to distinguish their writing from ones that are less researched or just completely wrong? The author notes that “the community often acts as fact-checkers,” which may work in a perfect sense, but what is the credibility of having anonymous people who are possibly uncertified to do this ‘fact checking’?