Previously I have discussed the definition and nature of dis/misinformation, social mediation of dis/misinformation, how dis/misinformation is influenced by culture, and the legal issues information professionals might expect to encounter that are related to dis/misinformation. I began this reflection because I was asked to look at how information professionals can help society by identifying and avoiding dis/misinformation. But I believe that some discussion is merited over the question of whether it is appropriate for information professionals to actively promote avoidance of information at all, even if it is dis/misinformation.
The assumption that it is appropriate for us to may be at odds with the activities and ethics of modern information practice. Librarianship has a strong tradition of campaigning for intellectual freedom and against censorship of all kinds. For example the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights states that “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,” and that “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view,” (ALA, 1996). The avoidance of dis/misinformation in collections and services is also problematic from a practical point of view. For example, the Conspectus Collection Depth Indicator for a comprehensive collection “strives to be exhaustive, as far as is reasonably possible,” (Biblarz, Tarin, Vickery, & Bakker, 2001). Such depth of coverage would include resources that could easily be described as disinformation and misinformation.
I also contest the assumption that the avoidance of dis/misinformation is helpful to society. Some research has shown that avoidance of alternative points of view is unhealthy and leads to the propagation of ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ neither of which could be described as helpful to society, though I hasten to add that there are disagreements about this (Bozdag & van den Hoven, 2015; Dubois & Blank, 2018). Disinformation can also be beneficial to society; propaganda is a species of disinformation, and yet some types of propaganda can also be helpful, such as public health messages, safety advisories, and social equality campaigns for example (Buşu, Teodorescu, & Gîfu, 2014).
Photo by Sylvia Yang on Unsplash
I don’t think it’s our job to instruct people to avoid certain types of information. Dis/misinformation isn’t a technological problem. It’s not an aspect of an algorithm that can be adjusted for. The effects we’re experiencing; microtageting, fake news, alternative facts, and the weaponized narrative are so pervasive because we’re used to ‘lazy thinking’ (Pennycook & Rand, in press). Critical analysis of any kind is challenging. But it’s our job to inculcate curiosity coupled with scepticism in the communities we serve. Dis/misinformation is a hard reality of life, and in a world of large-scale simultaneous communication it is one that we should get comfortable with challenging.
American Library Association [ALA]. (1996). Library bill of rights. Chicago, IL: American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/sites/ala.org.advocacy/files/content/intfreedom/librarybill/lbor.pdf
Biblarz, D., Tarin, M.-J., Vickery, J., & Bakker, T. (2001). Guidelines for a collection development policy using the conspectus model. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Section on Acquisition and Collection Development. Retrieved from http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/acquisition-collection-development/publications/gcdp-en.pdf
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y
Buşu, O.-V., Teodorescu, M., & Gîfu, D. (2014). Communicational positive propaganda in democracy. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 38, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.38.82
Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information Communication and Society, 4462, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428656
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (in press). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
No comments:
Post a Comment