When I was a kid, there was a story in the Boston Globe about an airline crash. The newspaper reported the “facts” about the accident. My father, who was a pilot, read the article and told me, “This account is full of misinformation. The reporter doesn’t know his subject.”

Then my dad taught me something I have never forgotten. He said, “The only reason I recognize that the story is incorrect is because I know about flying. Does this mean that other stories I read, where I don’t know the subject matter, might be equally suspect?”

The lesson was simple: misinformation—whether it is intentional, innocent or incompetent—can come from anywhere, even the officially sanctioned, “reliable” sources.

We all have our own awakening moment regarding the need for skepticism. Sometimes it is the result of a personal experience, like a botched medical report or bad financial advice, or it comes from a public cover-up, such as Watergate or the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. We are a discerning nation, and our skepticism is a healthy instigator of self-education. We demand to know the truth. Paradoxically, the more we know, the less we trust the sources from which the “truth” comes.

This is nothing new. But now we have an infinite number of sources and, as we discover more hidden truths, it is inevitable that we become increasingly wary of the information we receive. Even the phrase “The most trusted name in news” immediately invites cynicism.

So how are we, as a skeptical populace, dealing with this simultaneous increase in sources and decrease in trust? What happens when the word “trust” itself must be questioned?

Untrustworthy and proud of it
Like most of you, I rely on numerous sources for second and third opinions, whether it is something as trivial as a movie review or as weighty as a doctor’s diagnosis.

The fact that so many of us are questioning the authority of, for example, a doctor, and that we have so many resources with which to question that authority, is significant. It is even more important to take note of whom we are turning to for this supplemental (and sometimes contradictory) information. We are beginning to look to sources that admit that they are vulnerable to misinformation, because they are questioning themselves and taking measures to self-test.

Which leads to this irony: We are placing our trust in the sources that are willing to say, “Don’t trust me.”

One of the most extreme examples is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, whose slogan is “The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Their Web site points out that not only will they not vouch for the validity of their content; they encourage you to change their content.

The Web site goes on to say, “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be changed by anyone with access to a Web browser. Wikipedia’s status as a reference work has been controversial since its open nature allows vandalism, inaccuracy, inconsistency, uneven quality and unsubstantiated opinions. It has also been criticised (sic) for systemic bias, preference of consensus or popularity to credentials, and a perceived lack of accountability and authority when compared with traditional encyclopedias. But the scope and detail of its articles, as well as its constant updates, have made it a useful reference source for millions.”

(By contrast, the Encyclopedia Britannica advertises itself as trustworthy based largely on its expert contributors: “More than 90 have won Nobel prizes. Most are authors, university professors, commentators, museum curators, scientists and other experts chosen for their field expertise.”)

I applaud the participation that Wikipedia has spawned and I believe that it supplies valuable material, but it also really scares me. Here’s why:

Most of us go straight to the Web to get information for three reasons: it’s free, it’s instant and it’s accessible. So we supplement our visits to the doctor or lawyer or newspaper with visits to the Internet. That sounds good. But read the last line in the above description of Wikipedia again. What they are basically saying is that even if Wikipedia is not reliable, at least it’s big and detailed and it changes often. Does this mean we want lots of fast, cheap, updated inaccuracy? Abundance can be a double-edged sword.

We are, I hope, discerning, but it’s not easy to be thorough. I was unnerved when a friend said that she did not know that Wikipedia was open to anyone’s editing. And why would she? When you Google and get a Wikipedia hit, you don’t necessarily see its motto. This is not Wikipedia’s fault. It just underscores the point that all information is suspect.

Trust my watchdog
Organizations that are much more established are also displaying their potential for inaccuracies, and their methodology for engaging the public. For example, newspapers, radio stations and television stations appoint individuals called ombudsmen. “Inside a news organization,” says NPR’s ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, “an ombudsman is there to get answers for listeners, viewers and readers. News ombudsmen (also known in newspapers as public editors or readers’ representatives) investigate complaints and concerns about matters of accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste. The concept has been spreading in U.S. and overseas media, especially over the last few years.”

Again, this is not new. (Dvorkin says that news ombudsmanship has been around since the 1920s.) But e-mail and blogs have resulted in—or caused—a greater demand for self-examination from these organizations. That, along with the ease of e-mailing, has dramatically increased the correspondence that the ombudsman receives. The public engages in critiques of every sort, including vehement disagreements with the ombudsman him or herself.

This certainly sounds healthy, but I pity the poor ombudsman! The organization has one person who is tasked with answering a growing and clearly overwhelming number of queries (and rants). This makes it an impractical model. On the Web, many-to-one does not work; one-to-many or many-to-many does. In that respect, Wikipedia is a more appropriate model for the Internet. Still, appropriateness does not replace trust.