A deeply philosophical question that one could answer in a metaphysical or practical manner. As per my personal preference, the practical answer:
The right kind of knowledge is the one that can be independently verified and cross-checked against multiple connecting sources. The most firm framework for this is the Scientific Method.
Without independent verification a piece of "knowledge" is only a hypothesis.
In my opinion there is no right or wrong knowledge, everything you can learn that makes your mind enriched by new things that were previously unknown is positive.
However the negative or wrong is what you do with the knowledge you gain or have; basically how you use what you know will determine if it is right or wrong that you have learned it because otherwise there is no factor that can quantify which knowledge is right and which is not.
Well, you can't say anything as knowledge, if sometime you are learning is putting bad impact on your is can't be knowledge,
Knowledge always puts some positive impact.
here you are the judge yourself , you need to judge the information is giving to you is right or wrong?
If you are a positive person . You will stop if something you see is wrong.
I think Having no knowledge is dangerous.we all need every kind of knowledge which is required to live in this world.if we will be awared of everything we will be save.our society always demands from us to know all its bad and good impacts.Knowledge help us in many ways like:
# to know the people
We have many kind of people around us.its very necessary to educate ourselves with the knowledge that how can we treat our society.
# to select a profession
Knowledge on every topic can help us to choose a good profession.a good source of earning can solve our many problems.knowing about the importance of field also help us to select goof profession.
There might be different definitions for it at any rate for all intents and purposes its an instrument which ought to enable you to recognize what is trivial to know and without act knowing is vain.
Straightforwardly one more impossible bit of adjusting (rather data gathering.) brings "mental self picture" of 'knowing' along which gets eaten up by your care inadvertently and frustrates your capacity to have authentic information. This is one of the reason adroit says "half learning is risky.".
The true blue learning engages you to raise issues on even the alleged learning you amassed in time, refine it, disrespect it, change it, it enables you to disconnect between 'data gathering' and 'information getting' and unmistakably affecting you To perceive and FEEL that you know by nothing and knowing is worthless.
There are extremely gigantic things to know and what reason you need to accumulate such information adjacent to satisfying your inside character of 'knowing everything'? It inside and out that truly matters finish no need in lighting off one's life. It will draw in you to request that yourself evaluate by virtue of get-together this data is worth or inconsequential.
You know individuals says 'each learning is critical.'. It totally is aside from you ought to be able to see what is information and what isn't. :)
Or on the other hand perhaps true blue learning connects with you to channel through data, engages you to pick which data is trivial and is only a decline for you. It will connect with you to perceive knowing something never enables at any rate APPLYING what you to know does.
Well this is a point one can continue chattering unendingly. In once-over learning is something which enables you to disconnect between data gathering (the greater part of which is rubbish) and knowing never invigorates, you need to make up for lost time with what you know.