Consciousness of disinformation (e.g.)

[Clifford Urr]

Robert wrote:
     
>If the information is imprecise, legally invalid, or of an expressly, 
>maliciously misguiding nature, anyone from any field should speak up, 
>particularly if their are no disclaimers accompanying such information. 
>That's certainly nothing to deride or address with cynicism.

Well, jeeze, this can be said about information in any format. Since we 
are talking specifically about info. transmitted on the web, or I thought 
we were, it seems you are implying insistently that "disclaimers" should 
occur on web info only. If you are going to insist on this for web 
materials, then it would be balanced and more honest to direct such equal 
insistence with regard to other information transmission modalities.
     
Below you say:

>Who's threatened?  (Secrets?)  If anyone is threatened by blatant 
>disinformation, it's the receiver of that information.  

As I said in a followup post, information monopolies as represented by 
clubs of experts are also threatened when and if good information is 
transmitted *via the web* from those not part of the club. Their control 
was MUCH greater without it, hence they could charge more. These clubs 
are losing their control over *non-club transmissions of good 
information* thanks to the web, glory hallelujiah! This is a *much, much* 
more interesting and crucial story than the rather boring issue of the 
poor innocent users getting caught up in some cruddy or incomplete 
information (as if that does not happen in libraries too?! An old 
story...) 

Give it some time - the cost of using experts is going to come down 
radically, I think, thanks to the possibilities of the web. And with 
that, their base of power to control minds and hearts (in a myriad of 
ways) and influence society will also go down, down, too. (For the 
incredibly baneful and destructive influence of "experts" on modern 
society, read historian John Ralston Saul's magnificent and magisterial 
book that came out a few years ago, "Voltaire's Bastards." 

You next say:

>If disinformation (e.g. slander) is involved with and applied against 
>professionals , which I believe is what you mean by "Keepers of the 
>Secrets...," then there is legal recourse for that too.

But I was not referring to slander, since the article you cited wasn't 
not concerned about this issue at all. 
     
You finally say:
     
>This isn't about competition, commercialism, "keeping secrets."  This 
>is about information and people--patrons, researchers, and 
>professionals alike--using and relying on such information.
     
I agree, but not framed from the point of few of the experts and their 
clubs.