Here are some snippets from that site:
ed.uiuc.edu
The first category of information that troubles users is misinformation, information judged to be false, out of date, or incomplete in a misleading way. Because there are so many providers of information and opinions on the Internet, in so many forums, and because there is no practical check on people putting out whatever they might, there is sure to be a high percentage of unreliable content mixed in with what may be more credible. The problem is when a user doesn't know which is which.
It is hardly a new issue to wonder about the accuracy of the information we encounter in texts (books, newspapers, television, or whatever) or in the discourse of everyday life. There is nothing unique about the electronic universe in this regard, except that the people who are creating and putting out the information are usually even more invisible. People generally assume the reliability of certain providers of information (the Encyclopedia Britannica or the local telephone directory). In some areas, they may know enough to evaluate that credibility against their own expertise in certain matters. But often they will rely on indirect proxies of credibility, such as a professional degree, an institutional identification, or - in face-to-face encounters - elements of style, appearance, or manners. In the context of the Internet, some of these indicators may still be useable; others have little meaning at all. The providers of information on the Internet, even more than in other media, operate through surrogates of representation: users see of them only what they choose to represent about themselves and users may have very little additional information against which to judge their claims. Moreover, the origins of information itself may be indirect, as people forward or link to information provided by others, so that a relatively reliable person may be repeating an assertion from an (unknown) unreliable source, or vice versa.
Already we have seen that the Internet has become a special haven for rumors, gossip, and conspiracy theories. These ideas (a) can be circulated very quickly through multiple cycles of forwarding (like certain viruses, in fact); (b) are therefore difficult to trace back to any original, accountable source; and (c) can have a surface credibility that looks just like "real" news and information. In a decentralized information system with few formal gatekeeping mechanisms, how do we prevent the "noise" from drowning out worthwhile material?
-----
A special category under misinformation is disinformation, knowingly false or malicious information transmitted purposely to discredit an organization or an individual. In the first instance, for example, false Web pages have been posted, looking for all the world like authentic ones, with believable web addresses, but with false, misleading, or derogatory information just close enough to the edge of plausibility to reflect badly on the group (the 1996 Bob Dole presidential campaign in the US was the recipient of this treatment). The line here between satire and libel becomes blurry: how "obvious" does the joke need to be; how can the group disavow the page as a reflection of their views; what are the appropriate margins in public political discourse between challenging opposing positions and distorting or misrepresenting them?
-----
A certain pervasive skepticism toward everything on the Internet is not a bad starting point.
4. A very different sort of critical reading will require asking the question, "What isn't here?" (like the dog that doesn't bark in Sherlock Holmes). Such a conclusion will require triangulating from what one already knows to infer where the gaps might be; or will require close reading of the organization of pages, and links, to interrogate the dead ends and omissions. This is, I think, one of the most important, and yet most difficult dimensions of critical use; since, for all its encyclopedic content, the most striking thing about the Internet is still its silences.
5. Yet another critical slant, cutting across several of these points already, is to ask, "Whose interests are being served by this information and by this presentation of information?" Apart from identifying the sources of information, one also needs to infer where and how the emphases and omissions of content, how it is organized, and so forth, may serve particular group interests over others. This means evaluating the effects of content rather than just their sources. Sometimes these effects might be very subtle; but they are almost never neutral, and with certain kinds of content they are absolutely unavoidable. Related to this point is that where the information on the Internet is contextless, critical users will need to recreate that context, if they can. This not only provides ways of evaluating its significance, but also potentially of enhancing its meaning.
-----
7. Then there is the reflexive nature of critical reading: of using discussions about misinformation, malinformation, messy information, and mostly useless information to highlight and reflect upon the procedures and criteria by which we identify information as "mis," "mal," "messy," or "mostly useless." In certain ways, reflecting upon how we make such judgments in ordinary circumstances, as illustrated by the discussion here, shows just how problematic these assessments can be. The way that information and communication work within the Internet heightens some of these paradoxes and difficulties. It takes a certain kind of flexibility to examine the assumptions of one's criteria of judgment at the same time that one is applying them; and a certain kind of open-mindedness to reflect on the possibility that things might be otherwise. This, too, represents a certain kind of critical reading.
8. Nor is the exercise of this critical discernment solely a property of individuals. In many instances the process will be one of "distributed credibility": how a group of users share their judgments and information with one another in a way that inspires trust. The intelligence and resources of thecommunity will surpass that of any member within it; conversely, the way in which credibility is reinforced through this networking helps to underscore the identity and solidarity of the community. |
