Internet disinformation overload

I'd compare it to going to a library or bookstore. You can get information
or disinformation depending on which book you read.

Could be. Ive had some of my students take Wikipedia crap apart in a position paper about a "pet" theory that some researcher in genetics had spread all over several years ago. Wiki and several others dont really have resources to make sure that what they put out there is actually defensible. SO they rely on volunteer peers. many of whom are either retired or are students.

If you are commenting on how several news sources (like CNN) make available space to outsiders to publish stuff as news or truth, they take a risk . Like bewildered s crap about the 300 MYa skulls, of humans. This stuff was given the dust off by real scientists almost 10 years ago when it was semi hot.
The Creationists jumped on the bandwagon cause here was some evidence they sought.
Then the paleontology community did an expetnsive excavation at the "fossil" location and found a PLUMB brand mining pick embedded along with the fossil bones and the skull. It was a miner form the 1800's who got incorporated into the coal measures and was chemically altered by the acidic conditions.
The Creationists disappeared as quickly as they showed up.

I poften see some dubious stuff in blogs and other sources. There are no standards on the internet (perhaps there should be but whos gonna pay for it?)

I could see some wank politician looking for a pet cause making a stink about the lack of standards on the web...

Something about our "rights"...
Something about "the children"...
Yada yada, bla bla bla...
And bam! New laws and an agency or commission are born.
And we're all gonna pay for it.

The best protection against disinformation is to NEVER rely on a single source. Read what a variety of sources say on the same subject. That way you can get a fuller picture. This method applies to both the internet and to traditional media (books, newspapers, journals).

well, most technical associations rely a lot on volunteers and ed boards, which are usually supported by he institutions and companies that employ the volunteers. Many companies and ed institutions have a responsiblility impressed on their people to do pro bono work on behalf of their tech specialty.

These people are supported by the associations in expenses and that money ios spread out among the members as a cost for membership (along with the reultant journals we get).

I dont think some govt agency needs to get involved unlkess it really gets outta hand and nobody can truct the open internet. In that case though, the techy societies would already be set up for dissemination of their stuff and they would have all kinds of disclaimers that , unless its from the "official Journal of weed Whacking" , anything you read that purports to be associated with the weed whackers of AMerica is unsupported by the WWAoA.

i'll take disinformation any day

Absolutely. With wandel's comments in mind.

I was actually expanding on that without limiting to that item in particular.

Before the Internet, it took money to make your ideas visible to a lot of people, so economic considerations created a natural filter that kept most wanton speculators out of the information pool. But now that anyone can spam the Web with claims of all sorts, it obscures the data that we would otherwise find most useful.

I've often wondered at what point the volume of "junk info" would begin to overwhelm the system to effectively obscure the value of such a large source of information (as the Internet is).

On the other hand, humanity has always been saddled with an excess of "bad knowledge" and a modern technological civilization still came to pass, so maybe this is an age-old problem that is just larger in scope, but with the same proportional distribution of Junk-Info to Good-Info.

we shall always hve "snake oil" salesmen among us. Its the same crap , its just a different basket.

Good post.

I agree with that. I'm just wondering if the relative proportions have changed and if it's going to make a difference at all. (also I wanted to start a discussion that didn't center around people telling Spendi he is an idiot)

Yes.
It also helps to be a bit sceptical about obscure sources of online information & to research widely.
And of course, a reasonable level of education is definitely a huge help!

Misinformation or disinformation will always trump genuine information. The quality of one's sources will always be the key to reliable information, but it won't ever upset the apple cart of "old wives tales" (not a politically correct term, one now says "urban legend," even if it was promulgated by rubes) and histoical and biographical myth. Two good examples: an example of triumphant disinformation is the claim that Abraham Lincoln started the American civil war, despite the abundant evidence that this is not the case--it is an essential component of the "lost cause" myth, and even well-meaning people who should know better perpetrate it. An example of persistent misinformation is Horatio Nelson's eye. During a siege of a city on Corsica in the war of the first coalition (1795? 1796?) he was hit in the head by a shell fragment or a rock chip, near his right eye. He didn't lose the eye, nor did he even fully lose his vision in that eye. He went to his grave with both eyes. However, the myth that he lost an eye (as well as his right arm--which was no myth) is so entrenched that even well-educated people still repeat it. It didn't help that he perpetuated the belief that he was at least blind in his right eye, either. At Copenhagen in 1801, the commander, Admiral Hyde Parker, flew the signal to disengage. Nelson put his telescope to his "blind eye" and commented to the effect that he was entitled sometimes to turn a blind eye. But he did not lose his right eye, nor was he blind in his right eye. The myth persists. When people "know" something, those who dispute it are not only ignored, they are often disdained.

Greshams law says that bad money drives good money out. I had an economics professor restate it to match the above.

I'd never heard of that one--but then, my biggest failing as a student of history was that economics bored me. I can see the point about "bad money" and "good money," though. There's plenty of evidence for that.

He did lose an eye, but he still had two because he was born with three. That's where the term eye eye captain comes from. It used to be eye eye eye captain in deference to his three eyes.

Third Eye Blind, "Blinded"

NO is my answer. When you Google something, already you are immediately going to see the mean, median, and mode. Depending on your own intelligence you will then be able to screen for credible sites. For credible information, you should avoid forums, instead seeking peer reviewed scholarly journals and publications. But if you are just having fun, or seeking a quick response to a question, forums may help. You will find just as much propaganda on television or at a news stand, and nearly every publication or magazine on Earth has some political bias. For example CNN and NBC only give the leftist liberal take on everything. Newspapers are also propaganda, and intellectual prostitutes. Most colleges and high schools already teach us how to screen for credible data on the internet.

I like your response.