@article{williamsonTakeTimeEffort2016,
  title = {Take the Time and Effort to Correct Misinformation},
  author = {Williamson, Phil},
  date = {2016-12},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  volume = {540},
  pages = {171},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/540171a},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14223164},
  abstract = {Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies -- and harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back, argues Phil Williamson.

[Excerpt] [...] Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini's law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology?

[\textbackslash n] I think it is. Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop.

[\textbackslash n] [...]

[\textbackslash n] Yet the rising tide of populism threatens the future of evidence-based governance. Social media and websites, lacking quality control, are replacing newspapers as the main information sources for the public and many politicians, even at the highest level. Not much can be done about this nonsense online, but 'not much' is still something. Discussion threads provide some opportunity for challenge and informed comment, but are not for the faint-hearted. Another approach is fact-checking websites such as Climate Feedback.Scientists should support such efforts, even though they don't have the resources to scrutinize every dubious claim.

[\textbackslash n] For greatest effect, I suggest that we harness the collective power and reach of the Internet to improve its quality. The global scientific community could learn from websites such as travel-review site TripAdvisor, Rotten Tomatoes (which summarizes film and play reviews) and alexa.com (which quantifies website popularity), and set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14223164,~to-add-doi-URL,bias-correction,peer-review,post-truth,publication-bias,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,uncertainty-propagation,web-and-information-technologies},
  number = {7632}
}

{"_id":"LMJWyxQCTJZ4rn49H","bibbaseid":"williamson-takethetimeandefforttocorrectmisinformation","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Williamson, P."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Take the Time and Effort to Correct Misinformation","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Williamson"],"firstnames":["Phil"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2016-12","journaltitle":"Nature","volume":"540","pages":"171","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/540171a","url":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14223164","abstract":"Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies – and harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back, argues Phil Williamson. [Excerpt] [...] Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini's law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology? [\\n] I think it is. Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop. [\\n] [...] [\\n] Yet the rising tide of populism threatens the future of evidence-based governance. Social media and websites, lacking quality control, are replacing newspapers as the main information sources for the public and many politicians, even at the highest level. Not much can be done about this nonsense online, but 'not much' is still something. Discussion threads provide some opportunity for challenge and informed comment, but are not for the faint-hearted. Another approach is fact-checking websites such as Climate Feedback.Scientists should support such efforts, even though they don't have the resources to scrutinize every dubious claim. [\\n] For greatest effect, I suggest that we harness the collective power and reach of the Internet to improve its quality. The global scientific community could learn from websites such as travel-review site TripAdvisor, Rotten Tomatoes (which summarizes film and play reviews) and alexa.com (which quantifies website popularity), and set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14223164,~to-add-doi-URL,bias-correction,peer-review,post-truth,publication-bias,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,uncertainty-propagation,web-and-information-technologies","number":"7632","bibtex":"@article{williamsonTakeTimeEffort2016,\n title = {Take the Time and Effort to Correct Misinformation},\n author = {Williamson, Phil},\n date = {2016-12},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n volume = {540},\n pages = {171},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/540171a},\n url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14223164},\n abstract = {Scientists should challenge online falsehoods and inaccuracies -- and harness the collective power of the Internet to fight back, argues Phil Williamson.\n\n[Excerpt] [...] Most researchers who have tried to engage online with ill-informed journalists or pseudoscientists will be familiar with Brandolini's law (also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle): the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Is it really worth taking the time and effort to challenge, correct and clarify articles that claim to be about science but in most cases seem to represent a political ideology?\n\n[\\textbackslash n] I think it is. Challenging falsehoods and misrepresentation may not seem to have any immediate effect, but someone, somewhere, will hear or read our response. The target is not the peddler of nonsense, but those readers who have an open mind on scientific problems. A lie may be able to travel around the world before the truth has its shoes on, but an unchallenged untruth will never stop.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] [...]\n\n[\\textbackslash n] Yet the rising tide of populism threatens the future of evidence-based governance. Social media and websites, lacking quality control, are replacing newspapers as the main information sources for the public and many politicians, even at the highest level. Not much can be done about this nonsense online, but 'not much' is still something. Discussion threads provide some opportunity for challenge and informed comment, but are not for the faint-hearted. Another approach is fact-checking websites such as Climate Feedback.Scientists should support such efforts, even though they don't have the resources to scrutinize every dubious claim.\n\n[\\textbackslash n] For greatest effect, I suggest that we harness the collective power and reach of the Internet to improve its quality. The global scientific community could learn from websites such as travel-review site TripAdvisor, Rotten Tomatoes (which summarizes film and play reviews) and alexa.com (which quantifies website popularity), and set up its own, moderated, rating system for websites that claim to report on science. [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14223164,~to-add-doi-URL,bias-correction,peer-review,post-truth,publication-bias,science-society-interface,scientific-communication,technology-mediated-communication,uncertainty-propagation,web-and-information-technologies},\n number = {7632}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Williamson, P."],"key":"williamsonTakeTimeEffort2016","id":"williamsonTakeTimeEffort2016","bibbaseid":"williamson-takethetimeandefforttocorrectmisinformation","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14223164"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14223164","~to-add-doi-URL","bias-correction","peer-review","post-truth","publication-bias","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","technology-mediated-communication","uncertainty-propagation","web-and-information-technologies"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:33.566Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14223164","~to-add-doi-url","bias-correction","peer-review","post-truth","publication-bias","science-society-interface","scientific-communication","technology-mediated-communication","uncertainty-propagation","web-and-information-technologies"],"search_terms":["take","time","effort","correct","misinformation","williamson"],"title":"Take the Time and Effort to Correct Misinformation","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}