Infowhelm -- something to be avoided?

Infowhelm: too much information. Better than not enough information, I think.

Ian Jukes popularized the term a few years ago and it gets a lot of traction in library circles. Information overwhelm describes the unimaginable amount of information that is produced each day, each hour, each minute....  It's an impressive amount, but what does it really mean?

Is there too much information to process? No question.  Do many people really think they have to 'know' it all? Doubtful. (If they do, they are still living in the 20th Century.)

I'm not about to get stressed out about too much information, no more than I'm stressed out by the realization that's there's too much oxygen for me to breath. It's when there's not enough that I'm bothered.

Too much information is not a bad thing. A person can only process so much of it anyway, so it's not like it's going to make us sick. The real problem is that we're not paying close enough attention to the information we can handle.

In an age of info-bombardment, we tend to duck and take cover, metaphorically speaking. There's too much to look at, so we only take a cursory glance at everything. I know that an oversimplification, but there's a lot of truth to it.

Dennis and I spend a lot of energy showing people how to slow down and look more closely at the information right in front of them. Take a minute to read a page. It's going to be more informative than skimming 10 pages in the same amount of time.  What you missed on the first page was worth discovering.

A key investigative information strategy is not to stray too far too soon from the page you are evaluating.  Clues are easily overlooked. For instance, in the model lesson about DNA and designer babies, one of the tasks is to discover the author of the material. Start by scouring the page. Look for clicks that may contain hidden information.  There are at least three possible authors. Can you find them?

Don't run away from information. Spend quality time with it.

Spam Stupidity

Some spam is way too obvious--except for my spam filters.

Here's an example that made it past my email filters a few days ago:


From: Paypal Customer Service serviices@paypall.com
Subject: Your Paypal Account Will Be Limited
Date: May 22, 2011 9:43:41 PM CDT

Hello Paypal Customer, Your Account Will Be Limited Until You Submitted Some Information. If you didn't submit them, your account will be limited after 2 days.

This was followed by a link to click.

Right.

Just reading the header is enough to raise an eyebrow.  The Caps in the body and the grammatical mistakes provides a nice finish.

I've documented this to emphasize that reading is unparalleled as an investigative skill. If your language skills are weak, your vulnerability increases.

I'd use an example like this with students--along with some legitimate messages--to have them identify potential red flags.

Do you have examples of similar messages to share?

Take Time to Read

Information for evaluating the credibility of a site can often be found right out in the open.

The best thing to do is take a moment and scan a page before acting on it.  For example, here's another scam that showed up in my inbox today:

 Get More Out of Skype -  VoIP for free

If you are already a Skype user you know that most of its services are free to begin with. So what does this site offer that is any different than free Skype?

Not much. Read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

Disclaimer: This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the owner of this software program and does not re-sell or license software. All software is freeware and/or shareware with the understanding that the user may need or want to pay for it later. Membership is for unlimited access to our site's resources. We provide an organized website with links to third party freeware and shareware software, technical support, tutorials and step by step guides.

You can see that what you get for your money is basically "an organized website with links to ... freeware and shareware." Not much of a service, really. I wrote about this in a previous posting, but wanted to emphasize that clues on the page raise red flags, if you take time to read.

Searching too quickly--or acting too quickly--leads to a lot of waste. It's not a waste of time to read before believing.

Finding the Black Box

Homing in on information online is similar to locating a downed aircraft's black box in one respect: both send out signals. In the case of the black box, the signal gets stronger as you approach. In the case of information online, the contextual evidence (think clues) gets stronger.

Detecting those clues and interpreting them can be very difficult.

Homing in on information online depends on browsing for keyword evidence. Some people have a distinct advantage in this regard. Masterful browsers tend to have fairly developed language skills. This, coupled with a disposition to read carefully, puts them far ahead of otherwise skilled computer users. I know adults often feel inadequate when working with kids with lightning fast computer abilities. But adults, despite their technological shortcomings, tend to outperform prodigious children and teens when it comes to homing in on information.

I witnessed an example of this last evening when my wife pilot tested an assessment that Information Fluency is preparing to use with Center for Talent Development students at Northwestern University. Pat, not a computer user from birth, took about an hour to complete the 10 item pretest, most of which depends on careful reading and browsing--after all, investigative searching relies on being thorough and examining lots of clues. She only missed 2 items, which is typical of an adult who has mastered searching and evaluation. Middle school and high school students will take about half that time and miss the majority of the items.

The major difference boils down to reading and browsing carefully. Sure, there are other techniques in a skilled online investigator's toolkit, but careful reading and browsing can be used to solve most search challenges.

1. See every word as a clue It's really easy to overlook important keywords when skimming. The words and terms that matter most are typically nouns and numbers. Adjectives become important in detecting bias. Spotting these is easier by slowing down. If you have the attitude that words are clues--not just the specific keyword(s) you are looking for--you will probably have to adjust your speed.

2. Recognize and follow possible connections Here is where terms you weren't looking for become important and why it helps to have a good vocabulary. Synonyms and words used in the context of what you are looking for are all possible connections. It may help to think about what some of these other words are before reading. In terms of the Digital Information Fluency Model, this is known as finding better keywords as you search. You can't predict with 100% accuracy what keywords are necessary before you search. You have to pay attention and find them as you search.

An example may help Let's say you're looking for the publisher of this site: http://www.spacetoday.net. First steps are usually to read the header and footer for the name of an organization or copyright information. Not seeing those, what stands out is the About Us link. Let the browsing begin. The name of the publisher is in the text of this page. In this case, it's an individual: "Spacetoday.net was founded by Jeff Foust." This wasn't a particularly difficult challenge, but many students will miss it because the name is embedded in the text. Moreover, Mr. Foust's role is represented with the word "founded" rather than "published." You have to know what these words mean, how they are used and related. Is the founder always the publisher? Not always. To make sure we've got the publisher, another source of information is required.

Here's your Challenge: Can you find another source of information that confirms that Jeff Foust is actually the publisher? It might take another technique in addition to careful reading and browsing.