The age of Misinformation Overload?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

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

I think that the question almost has to be asked in a different way.

We know that the Internet makes it easier to get information due to its availability to the masses. We also know that more people are going to school for longer now due to the easier availability to post secondary education.

Is the proportionite use of mis-information any higher then it was in the pre internet age? I don't think i believe that.

People have been doing faulty research and there has been a lack of verification since Og told Zog that fire was actually the personification of the sun god on earth.

The informed masses to an extent in the 50's and 60's were just as believing of bad information that was available at school libraries or from bad teachers.

You can argue that the so called lower educational class is more informed to to the availability of information though.

But I think there's a common level of bad or unverified information no matter what the medium is that transports it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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.

And yet, I probably spend more time ensuring the accuracy of my work there than many in the mainstream media do. But yeah, you're an idiot if you don't take the time to evaluate the sources given.

Same goes for anything else. If it is written by Bruce Dowbiggin, I disregard it immediately because in my view, the reliability is lacking. Misinformation has always existed, and always will exist. In most cases, it survives only due to the gullibility of the reader.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the question almost has to be asked in a different way.

We know that the Internet makes it easier to get information due to its availability to the masses. We also know that more people are going to school for longer now due to the easier availability to post secondary education.

Is the proportionite use of mis-information any higher then it was in the pre internet age? I don't think i believe that.

People have been doing faulty research and there has been a lack of verification since Og told Zog that fire was actually the personification of the sun god on earth.

The informed masses to an extent in the 50's and 60's were just as believing of bad information that was available at school libraries or from bad teachers.

You can argue that the so called lower educational class is more informed to to the availability of information though.

But I think there's a common level of bad or unverified information no matter what the medium is that transports it.

Fair points, but I think here the problem also lies in the supplier. Pre-internet it was significantly more challenging to get on TV/publish a book/get your message out to the masses. Now anybody can, and does, from their bedroom. There was a natural filter of sorts on low quality information, but now the flood gates are wide open.

[blankall]

The access to information really gives people the opportunity to discern for themselves. Back in the day, when the government told you the world was flat, you believed it. Now you can look at various sources easily to challenge what someone tells you.

That being said some people want a simplistic black/white view or want to believe whatever confirms their own beliefs/politics. Those people cannot be disuaded by access to information, and their train of though existed long before the internet.

[CaptainCrunch]

To be honest Resolute, that does surprise me a little bit, I'm not condemning you or anything for it, but Wiki might be ok for verifying something from multiple sources.

In terms of Wiki I rarely use it now, I mostly use it to look up stuff from a fictional bend, or an entertainment bend.

IE some girl I'm dating starts blathering about Twilight, Wiki's perfect.

Or someone starts talking about movie star B or comic book hero C I'll google it and go to Wiki.

I just hesitata in using Wiki in an argument.

[sclitheroe]

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.

[sclitheroe]

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.

The LD-50 for Pointsettia in a 50lb child is about 1.25 pounds (500-600 leaves), per here: http://www.drugs.com/npp/poinsettia.html

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

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

That's just what the 1% want you to think, man. They need us to listen to their nonsensical bs in order to turn us into impoverished, brainwashed slaves that carry out their bidding.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I just hesitata in using Wiki in an argument.

Don't blame you. It'd be like using the Calgary Sun exclusively for the same purposes. The accuracy is higher than you'd expect, but when things go wrong, it is usually impressive. (The false quote re: Rick Rypien that the Toronto Star published being a good example)

But I will say this, I've been plagiarized by a CBC writer before, so I must be doing something right.

-----

Wikipedia is the most obvious example of what the OP talks about, however. The site is overwhelmingly accurate. But it also has nearly 4 million articles. Even a small percentage of errors adds up. Consequently, one must use their own judgement to decide if what they are reading is accurate or not. The internet as a whole is no different.

Well, except for Fox News, which is almost completely unreliable.

(for a laugh, check out conservapedia. The far-right version of Wikipedia)

[malcolmk14]

The critical thinking skills and evaluative techniques I've received in post-secondary are the most valuable skills I have. These skills can and will certainly be taught.

I can't fix a leaky faucet or solve an advanced calculus equation but I can certainly tell you whether the person who wrote that article is full of #### or not.

[chemgear]

Hmmm I certainly like to look at numbers/stats on the internet - also tend to link them here.

But to be fair, I do tend to assume the information is correct when listed from a major news outlet/Stats Canada/etc. But for all I know the information could be wrong - it does end up being a reputation thing.

Which is why the long term overestimation of US housing numbers was so surprising to me (and why I posted.) A national association of realtors would be an organization that one should be able to rely on for accurate numbers on things like housing sales for heaven's sake.

EDIT: I understand the need for revisions (like jobs numbers in the following quarter for example.) But to be off for years seems a bit hard to believe. That being said, we don't know the magnitude yet of that particular example yet.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

The LD-50 for Pointsettia in a 50lb child is about 1.25 pounds (500-600 leaves), per here: http://www.drugs.com/npp/poinsettia.html

Ha, there's some bad data interpretation already

No rats died during an attempt to establish the oral LD-50; therefore, the LD-50 was considered to be greater than 25 g/kg body weight.

Assuming no interspecies variation in toxicity, a 50 lb child would have to ingest about 1.25 lbs (500 to 600 leaves) to surpass the experimental LD-50.

[TorqueDog]

I think the problem is that, as soon as something has a website, the average person will begin to believe it as credible. Any asshat with a pre-paid Visa card and some time can buy a .com, build a website, and slap a bunch of nonsense on it. People will stumble across it, and immediately say to themselves "Oh, Michael Pollan has a website now, this must be true!" and voila, the spread of misinformation has begun.

More information is better. The trick is to be able to critically examine the information and make sure you're not believing rubbish.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I have seen erroneous medical passages on there that have not been corrected for some time....

crap, i have been running an alternative medical clinic out of my basement and i ask a series of questions then look at wikipedia and provide a diagnonsis and course of treatment.......seems i owe my patients an apology and possibly a refund.

i guess i'll have to research my predicament on wikipedia......

anywyas, now that my son uses the net to search for stuff for school i remind him that he needs to verify his answers by using a total of three different websites - i always tell him that the stuff on the net is somebody's version of the "facts" and most folks who publish stuff on the net have a personal agenda.

historically we have likely thought that the publishers of encyclopedia's are independent and have no agenda.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Fair points, but I think here the problem also lies in the supplier. Pre-internet it was significantly more challenging to get on TV/publish a book/get your message out to the masses. Now anybody can, and does, from their bedroom. There was a natural filter of sorts on low quality information, but now the flood gates are wide open.

When the only person you saw saying crazy stuff was the nut screaming on the street corner you had an idea how much faith to put in his message. Today all those nuts have websites and the ability to organize. That makes it much harder to distinguish between the good and the bad.

[CaptainCrunch]

Don't forget public access T.V. stations.

[CaramonLS]

To the OP - 1) I think now there is an excess of 'opinion' which is being propagated or somewhat represented as fact and 2) viewers are now more than ever being treated as consumers.

With the advent of the internet and the shift in mainstream media, there are a lot of different views being shown - these include areas such as economics, politics, international conflicts, etc. Basically anything that has a hard time being factually proven, will be debated.

There isn't a lot of chatter about the validity of particle physics.

Mainstream media has taken those views in some cases and 'branded' them. FOX would be the obvious example where they have marketed themselves to the conservative ideology and used that for their own benefit (market share, ratings, etc). People don't tune into FOX to hear how right Obama is, but rather how wrong he is. The execs at FOX know this and skew their programming accordingly.

The goal isn't to inform, but to get the viewer to consume the product (Bill O'Reilly, etc).

There is a reason that the Sun employs Eric Francis. He gets hits. He makes money. He speaks to a certain segment of the population.

Eklund is successful because of the same reasons.

People want this and if someone gets rich in the process, then it will be provided for everyone.

If there was a demand for the 'facts', then it would be provided. But the truth isn't making a lot of money. Instead, it is cheaper to provide "aerial support" to some random fire or other cheap storyline - and it gets you the same ratings.

I'll add, this isn't an attack on FOX and their leanings per se, but rather just how they market to their product.

[Phanuthier]

Topic at hand... yes... I think the next "big" sites coming out will be high-quality Q&A. One of my friends is involved in a startup for that (Quora) with the target being, only useful answers are kept and negative contributors eventually just die away. (somewhat elitest, but c'est la vie)

[Kybosh]

What we need is useful information. Like, I would love to know why certain posters were banned (again) but I am not privy to that information.

[Ex libris]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Now, we rely on the internet for our information needs, while the library has become an irrelevant anachronism.

Have to disagree with this - any decent library will have a large selection of online encyclopedias, reviewed/checked websites, online periodical databases, etc. that will provide accurate online information. Plus, library staff are all (or should all be) trained in how to do online research and to show that to people who just want to google everything.

The sad thing is, in the school where I used to work, students were allowed to use google and wikipedia for all of their research - there was absolutely no interest in teaching them how to properly do online research.