Earlier this week, Cynthia Banham wrote an interesting article for The Age about how Twitter is changing the way wars are fought. Amongst the retelling of this past summer’s use of microblogging to support protests in Iran—part of a discussion going on now at Australian National University’s War 2.0: Political Violence and New Media—was the following teaser question:
And what does it mean for accountability, when any individual can post manipulated footage on YouTube, or information on a blog site which hasn’t been subjected to some of the rigorous fact checking process newspaper or television or radio reporters have to go through before they can publish or air a story.
This is an old but persistent question about Web 2.0 content. The underlying assumptions are that rigorous fact checking will guarantee truth and that only trained professionals in traditional media are capable of checking facts properly.
First, mass collaboration in uncovering truth is, collectively, a rigorous process. Just as a common initial criticism of Twitter focuses on a single tweet (the “I don’t want to know what you had for lunch” complaint), rigor is often judged by the depth of work done by an individual or a small group of people providing oversight. However, crowds can cover more ground. Participants leverage their own personal expertise and self-select what interests them enough to warrant further investigation. Each person contributes a piece of the puzzle. A small group must be responsible for considering and acting upon all the pieces.
Second, whether formal or intuitive, training adds experience and efficiency to the process of fact-checking. Compared to the average Joe, journalists are likely to be better at confirming facts. However, their expertise is just part of the collective. No single person will have all experiences or the resources to generate a timely and comprehensive outcome. Collective participation is like pouring sand into a jar full of rocks. The wisdom of the crowds effect makes us smarter together than the smartest individuals (see: Wikipedia).
More importantly, suspect content found on the Web makes us question how true it is. The more we become familiar with Web 2.0, the more skeptical and skilled we become in confirming information. Our alarms start sounding, and we start to strategize where we might look for answers. When we consume or produce Web content, we are training ourselves in the art of criticism. We become less reliant on traditional institutions filled with formal experts to do our thinking for us, and more engaged with the social circles—including strangers—we trust.
By the way, the ANU forum is finishing today. You can catch up by following their Twitter stream or their webcast of the sessions.