Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
wikipedia has editors that go through articles and remove false or misleading information, and the major news sites have the same publishing standards as their magazine counterparts (for the most part)
|
The question here, and the one that will come to define information cultivation on the internet, is one of reputation. Broadly speaking, major news and information producers hold themselves to more rigorous standards for the assembly and publishing of data, and that's why we (probably should) listen to them before the anonymous twitter source or even a wikipedia page, whether curated by an "editor" in their spare time in their basement or a professional free-lancing.
I'd argue that although the internet does promulgate a lot of misinformation, the more important consideration is that it has also democratized dissemination - everyone can contribute what they know. As their reputation grows, based on merit, they become an increasingly authoritative source of information.
Social media is becoming an important component in helping people develop, ascertain, and evaluate the reputation of information and information producers online. When I see a lot of reputable people in my field build social network links and data feeds to individuals publishing information, whether its via Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, or whatever, I can reasonably begin to assume that what they publish is accurate and truthful. I don't, for example, have to fact check a technical blog post by Mark Russinovich - his reputation and body of work in the IT sphere is well known, and highly regarded by his peers.