Memorization useless for the "Google generation"

Quick, when was the Battle of Hastings?* Like most of us, I was forced to memorize useless information like this throughout my grade school years, data that -- unless Jeopardy! ever decides to invite me to appear on the show -- will do nothing but take up space in my brain.

Now one expert is questioning the value of rote memorization of dates, names, and places, suggesting that the Internet and the easy access it offers to what is essentially historical trivia has made such memorization of limited, or even negative, value. Per a story in the Telegraph, writer Don Tapscott "suggests a better approach would be to teach children to think creatively so they could learn to interpret and apply the knowledge available online."

There's value to this idea if one assumes that a child can only learn so much during one day of class. I'd certainly rather my daughter understand the reasons why the Black Plague occurred rather than her worrying about exactly what day it started. But I also wonder whether these are mutually exclusive: Is it really possible to teach one without the other?

Another big problem with Tapscott's thesis: The Internet isn't exactly the world's most reliable source of information. While broadly-known historical information is usually correct, I'm sure it wouldn't take much searching to find someone out there who put up a web page explaining the Civil War... and getting the dates completely wrong. That said, books and teachers aren't infallible either.

I'm curious about the readers' thoughts on this one. In an era where "lightning speed" is required of workers and students, is memorization of "facts and figures a waste of time" or should we be less hasty when it comes to giving up our tried and true old ways? Your thoughts appreciated.

POLL: What do you think?

*Answer:1066