The loudest voices and most spectacular claims tend to be fake. Single researchers working alone with no institutional affiliation or support group are always suspected. Anything connected to politics is usually fake. Reliability is found in confirmations from unrelated researchers. Peer review helps avoid fakes.
I copyright my work and publish it some where before submitting it to a peer review, because there are abuses in which a good piece of work is delayed in publication by the peers who then transfer much of the credit to some other researcher who is given a faster approval.
Albert Einstein refused to submit to peer review, but his support group was strong enough to allow him that freedom.
FAKE NEWS: UNOBSERVANT AUDIENCES ARE EASILY SWAYED
Fake information is no longer easy to identify by readers and consumers online. Numerous factors help explain it: sophisticated automation software, clever economic drivers competing for attention, the list continues. Producers of unreliable information are not held accountable to ethical regulation or journalistic integrity. Fake content appears in a language which exploits tentative truth and suspected veracity. Opinions are delivered in vague language thus Readers need to be wary of the moment such opinions are relayed by media outlets.
The competition that news organisation stage to get an even greater slice of the online audience govern our actions. With a highly effective and visible digital podium from which to speak, content managers, bloggers, your web content ‘produsers’–notice the uniqueness of that word in spelling–fuel an incredible money making system. And since anyone can now produce content online, what’s stopping someone from churning out their very own content … even fake content?
This article presents a recent experiment focusing on spreading fake information, which was deliberately fabricated to test the general public’s response to such falsification. In this context, the media has a role to play in fending off such misleading information...