[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

People think that dictionaries and Wikipedia settle the argument. They think they can just deliver one-liners that refute detailed articles or arguments. They select just one paragraph to address from large articles and ignore the rest. They resort to canned canards such as "that source is biased" or "it is intolerant to say I am wrong" because real legwork is beyond them. Google has truly "made them stupid."

The dilemma lies in the fact that in our desire to get to the truth we must expend increasing amounts of time and energy. Since time and energy is a finite quantity it must be rationed accordingly.

We then have a choice.

We can either know more and more about less and less until we know absolutely everything about nothing.

Or we can know less and less about more and more until we know absolutely nothing about everything.

[SeekAndFind]

I think this summary says it all :

The problem is not Google, but people. Google has made them stoopid, but not without their full consent. In light of the shallowness of thinking that permeates our discussions, however ... Deep reading makes for deep thinking. What do you suppose shallow reading makes for, then?