Accuracy, misinformation and pseudoscience on the internet

Climate change doesn’t exist.

Immunisation causes autism.

Fluoride is poison.

Scientists and governments don’t want you to know.

These are some of the things you might read on the internet.  They may be quite persuasive, depending on your particular set of values, beliefs and knowledge. But are they true? How do you know? How do you find out? Today’s blog post will discuss some of these issues.

What is accuracy on the internet?

Author: ClkerFreeVectorImages Source: ttps:// License: CC0 Public Domain

Bull’s Eye; Author: ClkerFreeVectorImages
Source: ttps://
License: CC0 Public Domain

Accuracy on the internet refers to the truth of the information: true or false, right or wrong, black or white.  We know that there is no guarantee that the information we find on the internet is accurate. Anyone can publish anything they like.  There may be no review process or fact-checking of the information prior to it being published, as there is for other published information, such as newspapers, journals, books and magazines.

Evaluating the quality of information on the internet

The notion of “accuracy” is limited because it refers to information that can be held up to some objective notion of “truth”.  This may work for some kinds of information, e.g. science (more on science later), geography and mathematics; but there is a lot of information on the internet that is not fact-based, but based on someone’s opinion.

We are talking about a bigger concept than simply whether the information we are reading is accurate or correct. We are referring to the quality of the information, which has many dimensions, of which accuracy is one.  QUT’s Study Smart Research and Study Skills Tutorial uses the following 6 criteria in evaluating internet resources:

  1. Reliability of the source: the credentials of the author and the publication are used to establish authority and credibility of the information.
  2. Validity: documentation of research methods, and inclusion of references.
  3. Accuracy: facts are cited and referenced; spelling and grammar is accurate.
  4. Authority of the author: Information is provided about the author, as well as their affiliations to organisations, their qualifications and experience.
  5. Timeliness: refers to information about when the information was created or published, and whether the information is updated. Currency of information is important in areas of rapid change, such as information technology.
  6. Point of view: Information is evaluated to decide if it is biased or unbalanced.

People need to evaluate internet resources based on a number of criteria to determine whether it is good quality information. The skills involved in evaluating information are part of a larger skill set referred to as “Information literacy”.

What is information literacy?

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA) defines information literacy as the abilities that enable individuals to “recognise when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the required information.”

5 Components of Information Literacy; Author: Seminole State Library Source: License: Creative Commons Attribution License (reuse allowed)

5 Components of Information Literacy;
Author: Seminole State Library
License: Creative Commons Attribution License (reuse allowed)

Determining the accuracy of information on the internet comes into the “evaluate” part of the definition.  People need to have the skills to critically evaluate information. This is really important! Many adults don’t have the skills to do it, taking for granted that the information they read on the internet is correct.

What is misinformation?

Misinformation refers to inaccurate or false information that is spread intentionally or unintentionally.

Author: Dave Haygarth Source: License: CC BY 2.0

Utter Bull; Author: Dave Haygarth
License: CC BY 2.0

Misinformation on the internet is a bit scary.  Read some of the stories on What’s the Harm?   and listen to this episode of Ockham’s razor on ABC Radio National if you don’t believe me.

In this episode, Tory Shepherd, Senior Writer for the Advertiser in Adelaide, worries about today’s kids, wondering how they will ever be able to determine truth, logic and reason, when truth is your own opinion, experts are hiding the truth, and science is no longer an objective, observable source of truth, but a belief system, which you can choose to believe in, or not.  She discusses how powerful the pseudoscience on a number of issues has become, and how resistant to extinction; particularly the pseudoscience on climate change, the anti-vaccination movement and fluoridation.  Her concern is that these movements can have such strength that they actually influence public policy.  She mentions a couple of politicians who believe that fluoride is a neurotoxin that politicians want to put in the water to poison the population.  She discusses the danger of people doing their own research, distrusting experts, and not knowing the limits of their own knowledge.

Why is misinformation so effective?

I found out that there are a few interesting psychological explanations for the power of misinformation; including:

  • It takes cognitive effort to evaluate the plausibility and source of a message. If you don’t really care about the topic, or you don’t have time to think about it or evaluate it, you may be more likely to accept the misinformation as fact.
  • When people do evaluate the message, they mainly consider whether the information agrees with what they already believe (confirmation bias).

When efforts are made to retract misinformation, often times they don’t work, and may even increase the person’s belief in the misinformation.

Cousins’ article states that there are real dangers of misinformation; particularly in terms of misinformation of the majority possibly influencing political decisions; and misinformation of individuals potentially causing them to make poor decisions with serious consequences.

Cousins believes that misinformation is worse than ignorance.

Is there a solution?

Education in critical thinking and information literacy skills are very important.  But I wonder if that is a complete solution.  Education won’t help everyone. Education may not unseat the misinformed beliefs that some people already hold, due to their distrust of science and expert opinion, or confirmation bias.  And what about vulnerable people who have limited cognitive, learning, intellectual or other impairments; with concomitant poor literacy, poor reasoning skills, and inability to conduct a critical evaluation of internet information?  Children are another vulnerable group, who potentially risk being harmed by carers with misinformed, pseudoscientific beliefs.

I don’t have the answer.  But I can envisage an ideal world where there might be a benevolent, independent global community of editor/s (maybe librarians? Maybe Wikipedia editors?) who would asterisk potentially suspect internet sources and indicate why they may not be the most credible, reliable or accurate source of information.


I edited Wikipedia!

This week’s play activity was a lot of fun.

I was a bit nervous, so it was reassuring to read that no, I probably couldn’t break Wikipedia (phew!), that my editing didn’t have to be perfect, and that Wikipedia was a work in progress.  I have a problem with things needing to be perfect, and if I think something needs to be perfect, I probably will not begin, because I will be so overwhelmed at the thought of having to achieve perfection.

Wikipedia has a lot of resources to help you edit Wikipedia.  I started off doing the Wikipedia tutorial, which takes you step-by-step through the process of editing or creating a Wikipedia page.

The Tutorial included useful videos  about how to cite and edit articles:

By Living Colour Filmproduktion, Hamburg, for Wikimedia Deutschland (Wikimedia Deutschland) [CC BY 3.0 (, via Wikimedia Commons

The tutorial also included a Wikipedia Cheatsheet to use with Wiki markup shortcuts, and you can also create your own sandbox to play/practice in:

My sandbox

My sandbox

Armed with my tools, I thought I would begin by doing a “Citation Hunt”; a Wikipedia tool that randomly selects an article that needs a citation.  (Did you know that Wikipedia has over 302,603 articles that need citations?)

I thought this would be easy… it wasn’t.  I ran into a dilemma when I found information on the web that I thought I could cite for the Wikipedia article, but when I found there were no references cited on those webpages, I wondered if they had got their information from Wikipedia in the first place, and that perhaps this was not going to be a reliable, credible source.

I found that it was easier to search for a topic I knew about under its category (i.e. speech pathology), rather than try to complete a random citation.

Here I hit pay-dirt, and edited the article, Speech-language pathology.  I added 8 references to this article.  Below are a few screenshots of the process:

Adding a reference / citation using templates:

You can choose from 4 templates to create citations. You can cite the web, news, a book or a journal.  I used the templates for citing the web, books, and journals, and they were easy to use. It took longer to find the references.

Adding a reference in Wikipedia

Adding a reference in Wikipedia

Article in editing / wiki mark-up mode:

Screenshot of one of the references I added in wiki mark-up.

Screenshot of one of the references I added in wiki mark-up.

Edit Summary:

This section asks you to describe the changes you made.

Screenshot describing changes made.

Screenshot describing changes made.

Show Changes:

When you select “show changes”, a screen displays the original text, and the changes you made side-by-side.

This shows the changes you made.

This shows the changes you made.

Show preview / Save page:

When you are finished, you can preview your changes to check that it will display correctly, before saving the page.

Screenshot showing the changes I made in the article body (I added citations 4-11)

Screenshot showing the changes I made in the article body (I added citations 4-11)

Screenshot of the references I added, after saving the page.

Screenshot of the references I added, after saving the page.

Future directions in editing Wikipedia:

This was a great activity.  I could see myself adding to this article to help improve it further.  Another of the issues identified with this article was that it may not represent a world-wide view of the subject.  At the moment, the article represents the profession from the perspective of the U.S.A.  I could add an Australian perspective, by writing about speech pathology education and training in Australia, and discussing speech pathology services in the Australian context.  Adding an Australian perspective would increase the relevance of the article to Australians, or those considering studying in Australia.