On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives

Library Trends, Wntr, 2004 by Don Fallis

The sooner a man begins to verify all he hears the better it is for him.

--George Gurdjieff

Trust but verify.

--Ronald Reagan

ABSTRACT

HOW CAN ONE VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF RECORDED INFORMATION (e.g., information found in books, newspapers, and on Web sites)? In this paper, I argue that work in the epistemology of testimony (especially that of philosophers David Hume and Alvin Goldman) can help with this important practical problem in library and information science. This work suggests that there are four important areas to consider when verifying the accuracy of information: (i) authority, (ii) independent corroboration, (iii) plausibility and support, and (iv) presentation. I show how philosophical research in these areas can improve how information professionals go about teaching people how to evaluate information. Finally, I discuss several further techniques that information professionals can and should use to make it easier for people to verify the accuracy of information.

PHILOSOPHY OF INFORMATION (PI)

PI is "the philosophical field concerned with the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilisation, and sciences" (Floridi, 2002b, p. 123). (1) Luciano Floridi (2002a) and Ken Herold (2001) recently looked at the broad connections between library and information science (LIS) and PI. For example, Floridi (2002a, pp. 47-48) considers whether PI might serve as the theoretical foundation for which library and information scientists have long been searching. Of course, it is somewhat rare for philosophers to explicitly address LIS issues. (2) Also, PI has only recently been identified as a distinct field of inquiry. Even so, philosophers have been working on many issues of concern to LIS for centuries (cf. Floridi, 2002a, p. 44).

This paper focuses on how PI can help with one specific practical concern for LIS, namely, how one can verify the accuracy of recorded information. In other words, how one can determine if the information found in a book, in a newspaper, on a Web site, etc. is accurate.

Notably, library and information scientists typically talk about evaluating the quality of information rather than about verifying the accuracy of information (see, e.g., Alexander & Tate, 1999; Cooke, 1999). In fact, accuracy is usually just one of the traditional criteria for evaluating the quality of information (see, e.g., Alexander & Tate, 1999, pp. 11-13; Cooke 1999, pp. 60-62).

Even for library and information scientists, however, accuracy is the sine qua non of quality information sources. For example, consider some of the other traditional criteria for evaluating the quality of information. The main reason that we are interested in finding information sources that are authoritative, objective, and current is that we think that they are more likely to be accurate. In other words, these criteria are indicative of information quality precisely because they are indicative of information accuracy.

Library and information scientists are legitimately concerned with quality issues that do go beyond accuracy, such as the accessibility, relevance, comprehensibility, and navigability of information sources. However, as Peter Hernon (1995, p. 133) points out, "it is not enough that information is readily available; before relying on any data or information, it may be important to ascertain, for example, the veracity of the content."

In this paper, I appeal mainly to the work of David Hume (1748/1977) and Alvin Goldman (1999 and 2001) on the epistemology of testimony (as well as to some work in game theory). (3) Their work suggests four important areas to consider when verifying the accuracy of information: (i) authority, (ii) independent corroboration, (iii) plausibility and support, and (iv) presentation. I show how work in these areas can improve how information professionals go about teaching people how to evaluate information. In addition, I argue that information professionals can and should use some further important techniques to make it easier for people to verify the accuracy of information.

THE PROBLEM OF INACCURATE INFORMATION

Even fairly reliable information sources contain some amount of inaccurate information. Famously, the Chicago Tribune mistakenly reported that Dewey had defeated Truman in the 1948 presidential campaign. More recently, Dan Rather mistakenly reported that James Brady had died after being shot by John Hinkley (cf. Fricke 1997, p. 887). However, since almost anyone can post almost anything on the Internet with no editorial control, we might expect much more inaccurate information on the Internet. (4) In fact, empirical studies have found a considerable amount of inaccurate information on the Internet (see, e.g., Impicciatore et al., 1997; Connell & Tipple, 1999; Berland et al., 2001). (5)

The reason that inaccurate information is a problem is that people can often be misled by it. And the risks here are not just epistemic. People use the information that they have to make practical decisions. If people are misled by inaccurate information, it can cause serious harm to their finances (cf. Fowler et al., 2001) and their health (cf. Kiley, 2002). In addition, while some people may be too credulous, other people may be too skeptical. Because they are worried about being misled, some people may fail to believe accurate information that it would have been beneficial for them to believe.