Expert knowledge for non‐experts: Inherent and contextual risks of misinformation
| Pages | 113-119 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960580000265 |
| Published date | 31 August 2005 |
| Date | 31 August 2005 |
| Author | Anton Vedder |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Expert knowledge for non-experts:
Inherent and contextual risks
of misinformation
1. INTRODUCTION
Part of the risks of sharing expert knowledge with
the general public is caused by the non-experts’
inabilities to recognize and assess the reliability or
unreliability of expert information or information
that is being presented as expert information. In
this paper, I will suggest some distinctions and a
general conceptual framework, which may offer
starting points for non-restrictive and non-pater-
nalistic solutions of problems regarding quality of
online information.
What exactly is quality of information? It is nec-
essary to ask this question because a clear concept
of quality will help to formulate policies for solving
the practical problems allegedly caused by flaws of
online information. The notion of quality, howev-
er, is an ambiguous one. The term is traditionally
used to refer to characteristics of an underlying
substance, e.g., weight, colour and shape, or to
properties in general, including formal or superve-
nient ones. Today, in everyday language, the con-
cept of quality has gained additional or, should we
perhaps say, a more specific meaning. Sometimes,
quality is simply identified with goodness. More
often, however, the term is used in a familiar,
though slightly less specific way, i.e., to refer to the
value of something with respect to its intended use.
When applied to data or information, quality is
often defined in terms of criteria of truth, accuracy,
conformity with facts plus this type of usefulness or
functionality. Authors like Frawley, Piatetsky-
Shapiro and Mattheus (1993) and Berti and
Graveleau (1998) already extended their notion of
quality to cover the degree of fulfillment of specific
interests and preferences of individual users. A
common characteristic of both of these accounts is
that they do not specify the relationships between
the criteria of functionality and the other criteria.
The connection between the two types of criteria
might, however, shed new light on the problem of
quality assessment.
Info, Comm & Ethics in Society (2005) 3: 113-119
© 2005 Troubador Publishing Ltd.
Anton Vedder
TILT, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, Tilburg University,
P.O. Box 90.153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Email: anton.vedder@uvt.nl
One of the most significant aspects of Internet, in comparison with other sources of information, such as libraries,
books, journals, television, radio etcetera, is that it makes expert knowledge much more accessible to non-experts than
the other traditional sources. This phenomenon has often been applauded for its democratizing effects. Unfortunately,
there is also a disadvantage. Expert information that was originally intended for a specific group of people – and not in
any way processed or adapted to make it fit for a broader audience – can easily be misunderstood and misinterpreted
by non-experts and, when used as a basis for decisions, lead to unhappy consequences. Can these risks be diminished
without limiting the informational freedoms of the information providers and without imposing paternalistic measures
regarding the receivers of the information?
Keywords: Ethics of information, quality of information, reliability, trust, ethics and epistemology
VOL 3 NO 3 JULY 2005 113
To continue reading
Request your trial