For this subject think of the Internet like an all you can eat buffet, sure most of it's been prepared by an enthusiastic beginner and most of it is decent enough (a little bit of food poisoning from time to time) with amazing variety but if you only had the professionals preparing it you'd probably end up starving to death no matter how good the occasional meal is.
Up to a point, yes - but we didn't starve before the internet came along
Back in the bad old days when all that we had was the dead tree press, there was a much smaller pool of information, but the information that was published was generally pretty good.
It had to be good because the publishers wouldn't accept manuscripts from dreamers, con artists and the like - those of us who were published knew our stuff and had already established a reputation, because unless the author already had a reputation, the books simply wouldn't sell and the publishers would lose money.
And, once the deal had been done, the work would go to an editor, who would - well, edit, and these editors were incredibly annoying people who sometimes watered down the book and seriously p***ed off the authors, but at least they acted as a filter, ensuring that the contents were accurate. I know this because, as well as suffering at the pen of editors, I've also been an editor.
The dead tree press isn't yet totally dead - take Light: Science & Magic as an example - it sells well, because it's good, and there is still a market for it, notwithstanding all the videos and tutorials available free online.
The
apparent problem with the old way of doing things was the year or so that it took to get a book published, which meant that it was never up to date in terms of new technology, but that wasn't really much of a problem because the rate of technological improvement used to be very slow.
I'd say it was more like an endless buffet but 90% of the food contains no nourishment, 5% is worth eating and 5% really hits the spot. Problem is, you don't know which is which.
What we end up doing is sifting out the rubbish with experience, by going to trusted websites, reliable bloggers and posters that we know by their user name to have good knowledge. But for the newcomer, it's a needle in a haystack.
As you say, for the newcomer it's difficult if not impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff. With the internet, it's all about presentation and b******t, with 'influencers' (who usually fail to mention that they are being paid) dancing to the tune of their paymasters and actively deceiving the people who they rreach out to.
Again, and turning now to photographic magazines, a few years ago any paid for content was clearly labelled as such, but although still labelled, paid for content is now far less obvious to the average reader. This is understandable beause the magazines are struggling to survive and they need to attract more and more paid for content, but it isn't right. And, increasingly, their own level of knowledge is much lower than it used to be, they rely more and more on staffers who know little if anything about their subject and who contribute to a range of different specialist publications owned by the group, which mans that the same person may write technical articles for Caravanning Monthly, Fly Fishing weekly and a photography magazine. All is not completely lost, there are still a few real experts around, and there is one on this forum
