Calibrating credibility of information influx
By Seema Mahato and Sarah Dunifon
We are in The Information Age and we have an information problem. Never has the amount of information been so abundantly and easily available to us, and with few safeguards. Technological advancement, especially in the way information is accessed and is ‘shared’, has its own boons and banes depending on the use of various platforms and information repositories. Boons like accessible knowledge for education, skill building, and global networking compete with misinformation and fake news using common platforms. The concern is that misinformation and fake news tends to travel faster than facts. Consequently, people receiving and then believing and acting on falsehoods could have real implications on our society.
Hence, it is important to address the constant production and dissemination of potentially destructive information. Individual level capacity and/or willingness to process the information received is essential. Many social media algorithms make judgements on what they think users will want to see. Therefore, folks start to only see evidence which supports what they already believe, rather than differing views which challenge their assumptions. This results in "echo chambers" that can be effectively amplified using or rather misusing new technology.
So how can we address this?
Based on the aforementioned, individual responsibility to gauge the validity of information consumed, strengthening one’s critical thinking, social media literacy, and technological literacy may be ways to safeguard ourselves and our societies from damaging misinformation. While social media and technological literacy develops over time, critical/evaluative thinking and individual willingness to gauge validity of information could be implemented anytime.
Critical thinking refers to “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.” Evaluative thinking, a term used in evaluation contexts, reflects a similar meaning.
When we examine information, we must consider our own interests, needs, or knowledge with reference to the information we are sharing. In the context of this blogpost, interests denote the social issues or topics that one cares about (e.g., climate change, equity, healthcare, etc.). Needs are like interests, but they also include a certain deficit or necessity that affect us immediately. For example, having healthcare, availability of well-paid job opportunities, and safe neighborhoods to name some. Knowledge refers to the capacity for sound judgement that one acquires through education and/or experience.
What does critical/evaluative thinking look like in action?
Let’s take an example: Before endorsing the statement that the Coronavirus is a ‘hoax’ we must ask ourselves – do I have the knowledge (expertise, education, training or experience) to verify this statement? If the answer is NO, then we should consider the potential impact of spreading such misinformation and refrain from signal boosting dubious information. If the answer is YES, then we must ask ourselves—how does sharing this information further my own interests and/or needs? How does the information help or harm the marginalized and underserved sections of our society?
This is the idea of using evaluative thinking to ensure responsible channeling (or spreading/sharing) of information influx. By asking three quick questions and answering those questions honestly, we can play our part in calibrating credibility of information influx. Illustrated below is a guide to this thought process.
We know that schools are already embedding critical thinking content within their curriculum. Schools and continuing education organizations (among others) may consider how they can continue to build critical thinking, media literacy, and technological literacy among their students.
Beyond our self-level assessment, we should also consider what questions to ask of the authors of the information. Information (especially that originating in social media or media) rarely is developed without objectives. We may metaphorically ask questions of the authors (e.g., “Does this media personality have something to gain by sharing this opinion or information?”) and we may actually ask questions of them (e.g., “Is this the whole story? What might be left out of this narrative?”). This will facilitate broader discussion and hopefully diffuse the echo chambers before they become socially destructive. Posting a question or comment rather than immediately hitting share, like, or retweet, indicates that social media tools are being used optimally and reinforces the role of these platforms in strengthening democracy. Not to mention the added benefit of giving ourselves the opportunity to learn something new as we think through or research before framing the question.
This is not a new idea. We’ve seen notable social media companies under fire in recent years for their roles in the spread of misinformation. More recently, these companies have begun to implement safe guards to prevent this spread, while still retaining freedom of speech. However, these changes may not be coming quickly enough. Knowing that much of the responsibility of vetting and validating information lies in the hands of the information consumer, where might we go from here?
We propose that society looks to incorporate more “evaluative thinking” in its processes and educational structure.
This might look like social media companies like Twitter incorporating machine learning or other data science to gauge the credibility of information, based on user history or other factors.
It may look like schools incorporating more media literacy, technological literacy, and critical thinking curriculum.
It may look like researchers uncovering truths relating to information spread, critical thinking, and communication within social groups.
It may look like individuals employing “evaluative thinking” when considering new information.
One thing is clear - in this Information Age, we as citizens of the 21st century must utilize the tools we have to dispel misinformation, think more deeply about the sources we consume, and hold organizations which traffic in information and media to higher standards of practice.