The age of Misinformation Overload?

[NuclearFart]

Does anyone else feel that the exponential rise of the internet and digital media has unleashed excessive "information" upon a naive population?

While the internet can be an unbelievable information resource, it remains a completely unregulated wasteland without the accountability of data integrity. Historically, one would go to the library for information, which did contain high quality sources (eg. encyclopedia) that had at least passed a chain of command of editors, fact verification, revisions/corrections from expert input, etc. Publishers established a credibility by striving for the truth, and were held accountable to this standard by their physical identity and the market.

Now, we rely on the internet for our information needs, while the library has become an irrelevant anachronism. Anybody can internet post whatever myth they want as "fact", often followed by others citing that post as fact, which others then cite as fact...etc, and before long it becomes a house of cards built entirely on a foundation of nothing. The problem is, few can/will ever probe to these depths, and even if someone does, the sheer volume of misinformation on this point outnumbers the truth. The internet universe doesn't get corrected or deleted; its a forever expanding mesh of past & present ideas. Given that the only real currency of the internet is number of hits (aka sheer volume), the stage is set for a vicious cycle of misinformation. We are forever left with a perpetuation of myths.

Do I think we are condemned to this fate forever? No, as the internet is not all garbage, and there remain credible resources outside of it like textbooks and publications. Open discussions here on CP certainly have merit, as there is usually someone here who genuinely knows alot about something. But moving forwards, I do think it will be integral to arm the public with the proper tools to sort through all the crap for themselves. Basic data analysis techniques, logic, statistics, and methods of critical appraisal to name a few are lacking in much of the public, however these are concepts that can be taught no differently than any other subject (and at a high school level).

Agree/Disagree/Nothing new? I'd be curious to hear others thoughts.

[CaptainCrunch]

I disagree, you can go to the Library and pickup books on alien abductions, 9/11 conspiracies, books on unicorns and big foot and the twilight serries.

the information published in books and stored in libraries is just as unregulated as the internet.

Its really up to the individual to apply their own filter to either paper or electrons through a fibre cable.

[NuclearFart]

Of course you can find that stuff in a library, but the point is in the processing of the data. It is easier to find credible information when you require it to go through publishing/editing, and libraries have dedicated sections to objective data that have undergone some sort of filtering. This is not the case for the internet.

I agree with your sentence though, and that leads to my point - most people lack that ability.

[kirant]

On a side closer to agreement, I think a lot of people take information on the internet as the truth. They'll commonly accept information as facts blindly with what's placed in front of them, instead of digging through information and finding some key facts from credible sources. In one way, it could be considered as making us lazy. This commonly occurs with bills and political decisions, where the internet will jump on anything that they deem a threat to them (even if it has no relevance), throw out information about laws even if, by pure reading of it, it makes no sense, and yell blind rhetoric about a politician, with or without reasonable backing.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Of course you can find that stuff in a library, but the point is in the processing of the data. It is easier to find credible information when you require it to go through publishing/editing, and libraries have dedicated sections to objective data that have undergone some sort of filtering. This is not the case for the internet.

I agree with your sentence though, and that leads to my point - most people lack that ability.

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)

think of it like this. if some random nobody with a twitter account posts a Flames trade, it will get hits but usually no one will actually believe them until something shows up on TSN. the internet is no different than the library, you have your certain areas that you know to be as close to fact as possible and others that aren't regulated. you can't just paint with a broad brush and say the entire internet is full of misinformation, it's just a form of media the same as books or TV

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Agree/Disagree/Nothing new? I'd be curious to hear others thoughts.

Organized religion has been surviving on this for millenia. (Yeah, I went there). You can't blame the internet for a lack of critical thinking in large portions of humanity.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Does anyone else feel that the exponential rise of the internet and digital media has unleashed excessive "information" upon a naive population?

While the internet can be an unbelievable information resource, it remains a completely unregulated wasteland without the accountability of data integrity. Historically, one would go to the library for information, which did contain high quality sources (eg. encyclopedia) that had at least passed a chain of command of editors, fact verification, revisions/corrections from expert input, etc. Publishers established a credibility by striving for the truth, and were held accountable to this standard by their physical identity and the market.

Now, we rely on the internet for our information needs, while the library has become an irrelevant anachronism. Anybody can internet post whatever myth they want as "fact", often followed by others citing that post as fact, which others then cite as fact...etc, and before long it becomes a house of cards built entirely on a foundation of nothing. The problem is, few can/will ever probe to these depths, and even if someone does, the sheer volume of misinformation on this point outnumbers the truth. The internet universe doesn't get corrected or deleted; its a forever expanding mesh of past & present ideas. Given that the only real currency of the internet is number of hits (aka sheer volume), the stage is set for a vicious cycle of misinformation. We are forever left with a perpetuation of myths.

Do I think we are condemned to this fate forever? No, as the internet is not all garbage, and there remain credible resources outside of it like textbooks and publications. Open discussions here on CP certainly have merit, as there is usually someone here who genuinely knows alot about something. But moving forwards, I do think it will be integral to arm the public with the proper tools to sort through all the crap for themselves. Basic data analysis techniques, logic, statistics, and methods of critical appraisal to name a few are lacking in much of the public, however these are concepts that can be taught no differently than any other subject (and at a high school level).

Agree/Disagree/Nothing new? I'd be curious to hear others thoughts.

More is infinitely better.

The truth for one person is not necessarily the truth for another . . . . . so if that's the argument then you're into the sticky business of deciding what the truth is and who gets to decide.

It's much better to make all information available to everyone and let them decide on their own version of "truth." And, in the world today, almost regardless of where you are, you have access to a wide variety of information and a broad range of opinions on what the truth is.

Its also be a Great Leap forward for the third world, as Sanjay Jha, the ex-CEO of Motorola observed in 2010.
“I can’t imagine anything since the invention of the spinning jenny that will so profoundly change the lives of people in the deepest rural parts of the emerging market. This is the knowledge revolution coming to them, finally.”
The internet is a rather fantastic development because its like a cockroach . . . . . no central authority can really kill it or warp it completely, as you've certainly seen in the Arab Spring. And that trend will only accelerate.

For all its untruths and perverse diversions, the internet represents a certain intellectual freedom, even the perceived abuses.

Cowperson

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

But moving forwards, I do think it will be integral to arm the public with the proper tools to sort through all the crap for themselves. Basic data analysis techniques, logic, statistics, and methods of critical appraisal to name a few are lacking in much of the public

Is this not the goal of higher education? Suddenly that Arts degree doesn't look so useless does it... Critical thinking, cultivated and developed in any discipline at a post-secondary level (not neccessarily in a post-secondary institution, but at that level of sophistication), is, and has always been, essential.

[Beerfest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree, you can go to the Library and pickup books on alien abductions, 9/11 conspiracies, books on unicorns and big foot and the twilight serries.

the information published in books and stored in libraries is just as unregulated as the internet.

Its really up to the individual to apply their own filter to either paper or electrons through a fibre cable.

The irony!

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Does anyone else feel that the exponential rise of the internet and digital media has unleashed excessive "information" upon a naive population?

the information is available somewhere, whether there is an internet or not. 70% of earth population is religious, so naive people have been around a long time, the internet has no bearing on that.

[Bill Bumface]

A quick test. This is an issue that came up a couple days ago in our house. Everyone phone up your mom right now, and ask if Poinsettias are poisonous.

I would guess the majority say yes.

If you research it, you find out this isn't actually true, but misinformation that has been propagated for most of the century.

No matter the media, misinformation spreads. I actually find it much easier with the internet to find out if something is bunk now.

[NuclearFart]

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)

Wikipedia having editors is a good step in the right direction, but they can only do so much and the level of expertise attracted to a volunteer, non-paying position is suboptimal. I have seen erroneous medical passages on there that have not been corrected for some time, likely because the editors lack the manpower/knowledge to correct them. It seems all you need to do is cite anything to support your claim, and it won't get flagged for review.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Is this not the goal of higher education? Suddenly that Arts degree doesn't look so useless does it... Critical thinking, cultivated and developed in any discipline at a post-secondary level (not neccessarily in a post-secondary institution, but at that level of sophistication), is, and has always been, essential.

I would hope this is the goal, and its certainly not the exclusive domain of Arts or Science. Perhaps this should be high school curriculum for a broader population?

[CaptainCrunch]

Anyone who uses Wiki as a single source destination for information is doing themselves a dis-service.

I believe that most schools won't except reports that reference Wiki as an information source.

Its the lazy man's version of Britanica.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

the information is available somewhere, whether there is an internet or not. 70% of earth population is religious, so naive people have been around a long time, the internet has no bearing on that.

So do you agree the problem lies in how the masses evaluate that information?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

A quick test. This is an issue that came up a couple days ago in our house. Everyone phone up your mom right now, and ask if Poinsettias are poisonous.

I would guess the majority say yes.

If you research it, you find out this isn't actually true, but misinformation that has been propagated for most of the century.

No matter the media, misinformation spreads. I actually find it much easier with the internet to find out if something is bunk now.

For the average person, has the internet facilitated the spread of misinformation out of proportion to legitimate information?

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

So do you agree the problem lies in how the masses evaluate that information?

the masses and individuals both.

I had this happen to me a few years ago.

I bought a session at the 3D Ultrasound place so my husband could see his baby in "real life" for his birthday.

I invited my inlaws to come along to watch as well, I thought it would be a nice gesture.

Well, what does my father do: he types "too many ultrasounds dangerous for fetus?"

What do you think came up? Tonnes of websites stating that prolonged exposure to ultrasonic waves cause cancer in unborn children! (I think Jenny McCarthy may have been quoted on some pages... whack-jobs IMO)
I had to"educate" my father-in-law how to type questions into a search engine to come up with unbiased information.

(this is how I interpreted the OP's topic, sorry if I totally got it wrong)

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Puxlut

What do you think came up? Tonnes of websites stating that prolonged exposure to ultrasonic waves cause cancer in unborn children! (I think Jenny McCarthy may have been quoted on some pages... whack-jobs IMO)
I had to"educate" my father-in-law how to type questions into a search engine to come up with unbiased information.

(this is how I interpreted the OP's topic, sorry if I totally got it wrong)

You hit the issue right on the head. I deal with exactly what you described on a near daily basis.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Is this not the goal of higher education? Suddenly that Arts degree doesn't look so useless does it... Critical thinking, cultivated and developed in any discipline at a post-secondary level (not neccessarily in a post-secondary institution, but at that level of sophistication), is, and has always been, essential.

I honestly thought all degrees taught it. Engineering definately stepped out of its way to start pointing at ways you could critically analyze information and (specifically in the prof's words) "not become a slave to media".

To be honest though, I always thought it should be done throughout the back half of your grade school education...the ability to distinguish between spin on stories, and important, relevant facts seems pretty important.