Librarians and controlling disinformation: is multi‐literacy instruction the answer?

Abstract

Purpose -Librarians have long been part of a group of professionals that took responsibility for the reliability of information and protected their users from the bad epistemic consequences caused by inaccurate information. Now users are acquiring information from the internet and using it to make important decisions. This method of acquisition is threatening the epistemological protection librarians have provided. The problem is one of verifiability, the users do not have a way to verify whether information is accurate or inaccurate. The verification is even more difficult with disinformation. The purpose of this paper is to explore possible alternatives to this problem and recommend using a new multi-literacy instructional method as the solution. Design/methodology/approach -A review of current literature confirmed the problem of disinformation and this paper examines possible solutions to controlling disinformation and makes suggestions on how we, as librarians, can use instruction to protect internet users from the harmful effects of using the false information. Findings -Research found that disinformation is a widespread problem and its use has epistemic consequences that are harmful to internet users. The paper proposes a new method of instruction using a combination of learning paradigms to help users protect themselves from disinformation. Originality/value -The paper presents a new instructional method that may help in identifying disinformation and help internet users avoid the bad epistemic consequences of using disinformation.

Fake news judgement

“…Conroy et al (2015) identified three broad types of fake information, namely, serious fabrications, large-scale hoaxes and humorous fakes, each having a different intention from the other. In this context, the term misinformation refers to information that is not true or inaccurate, which may sometimes be RSR 46,1 produced as honest mistakes (Walsh, 2010). Honest mistakes may include false information being shared by real journalists or credible mainstream media outlets, which give them the sense of authenticity (Schifferes et al, 2014) that eventually mislead people.…”

Why Students Share Misinformation on Social Media: Motivation, Gender, and Study-level Differences

“…These include reexamining the scope and focus of IL (e.g., critical IL, IL 2.0, and meta-literacy), developing standards and best practices, and conducting empirical investigations on students' social media information behavior. In terms of the last category, most studies have focused on perception and use of social media (e.g., Kim, Sin, & Tsai, 2014;Lim, 2009;Morris, Teevan, & Panovich, 2010;Zhang, 2012), as well as on the criteria and strategies used in evaluating the credibility of social media information (e.g., Kim & Oh, 2009;Lim, 2013;Walsh, 2010). Extant studies are invaluable in shedding light on students as consumers of social media information.…”

Public Management

“…It may result from many objective factors, and in the opinion of information holder may be intentionally accurate. At the other hand, disinformation includes element of intention, is inaccurate as a result of desire of purposeful confusion of another user (Walsh 2010). In the literature of subject one may encounter approaches differentiating semantic content value, which were accidentally damaged and become false information from those, which are to be damaged on purpose-disinformation (Fallis 2011).…”