On Authority and Credibility

In "info literacy" or "intro to the internet" classes we often teach the importance of knowing the authority or credibility of a source of information. Thanks to the ability of just about anyone to post just about anything there we need to beware of the dreaded "snakeoil salesman" - I used to refer people to a specific site dedicated to exposing just those sites and people. Problem was, over time the site itself became suspect (and still is, to some people's thinking). I made the mistake of what I might call "spot checking credibility" - a problem also implicated in the recent rise of the "evidence-based [fill in the blank]" movement. It seems as though some of our most treasured metrics of credibility are showing signs of strain, if not downright collapse.

David Weinberg has written over the years about changes in business models brought about by the Internet or (as is now the fashionable parlance) "Web 2.0". It makes me remember the magazine Business 2.0 and wonder how on target they were during the Internet Bubble Pop of the first part of the century, and if we might be setting up a similar series of unrealistic expectations using that term, which has now metastasized to Library 2.0 . He has an interesting point I think libraries and information professionals would do well to consider - much of our current global business climate has been a century-long aberration from previous business models (that is a move towards this Industrial Age oriented marketing and advertising where businesses talked down to "consumers" from on high rather than a bazaar model where buyers and sellers interacted face-to-face, in real time, and both somehow got what they wanted or needed). Much of what I see these days in terms of how we view authority or credibility fits more closely into the Industrial Age model - big institutions (universities, professional societies, companies, etc) expecting people to treat them with deference and respect because, well, they're big and have been around a long time. "We know information, you just consume it" is not something that tends to make the consumer feel good about that relationship, just like the marketing pitch that tries to make you think a company has your best interests at heart when trying to sell you a product or service. The form letter that uses the simple mail merge function (the "personalized" approach) fails miserably precisely because its so clumsy and obvious (I feel so much warmer and fuzzier getting a letter addressed "Dear Alan R" rather than "Dear Esteemed Consumer of our Goods in an Underutilized Market Space").

The internet and rise of tools for consumers to respond back to and evaluate these paragons of authority and credibility has changed the balance of power, probably irreparably and probably for the much greater good. The bad news is it can be very uncomfortable for people used to unquestioned power and control (there didn't used to be so many choices for where, when and how to get your information, and so many ways of evaluating it on your own). So in the library world why do we still give such support for sources of information that don't perform well, don't seem to have our best interests at heart and aren't the only source of information out there? Sure, its much easier to use a single source to purchase and manage lots of information subscriptions but is more of an inferior product really a good thing? And how do we expect things to ever change if all we do is complain meekly and then keep buying the same old crap? I'd like to see a little more principled decision-making regarding how we deal with vendors and other sources of information. In fact, I'd love to see us *becoming* those sources if the sources available don't exist.

I know, there's "startup costs" and "administrative costs", etc etc. But isn't that part of why these supposedly authoritative sources tend to move so slowly and charge so much for what they do? The adminstrative overhead of a huge company or professional organization has to reach a tipping point at which it becomes inefficient and unable to be nimble enough to change with the times - so they rely on the Argument from Authority. "Yes, perhaps our codebase looks like it was written by monkeys on (bad) crack, and we innovate at a pace that glaciers find admirable, but we're the best [fill in the blank] provider there is!". Well, probably you're the last [fill in the blank] provider left standing, and nobody else sees a reason to jump into your marketspace because they're already kings of their own. Fat, bloated, slow, lazy, unresponsive - is that the resume we want our "authoritative and credible" sources to have? I think not.

Performance and responsiveness is the new credibility. That doesn't mean the McDonaldization of these products or services either - a competent provider should be able to tell you straight up why and when they will or won't do things. In many cases less is actually more - if they'd take the time to provide *good* new products or services we'd all be much better off than just slapping together more hard to use and un-needed content. "Supersizing information packages" is unhealthy and un-nutritious just like it is for food. Perhaps a return to something more closely resembling the bazaar is in order. Save the money on booth bunnies and fancy food spreads at shows and put that money into a better product. If you're a professional organization don't rest on your laurels as "the first/largest/only organization" devoted to [fill in the blank]. If you don't perform well you're not credible. If you say you will "in the next release" and don't you're not credible. If you've been around forever but haven't "done anything for me *lately*" what good are you? It used to be we had very few sources of information and prediction (Oracles and prophets). Later it started to make sense to write things down, so we'd have a running tally and could compare the old with the new (libraries, and sounds kind of like blogs too, doesn't it?). Then we started digitizing and linking things, so we could access more and compare more - some call this the beginning of the Information Age or the Technological Singularity (depending on your comfort level with it).

Whatever your comfort level it seems as though the aberration of a hierarchical, controlled dissemination of information is over with, for good or ill. I remember hearing a speaker in the mid-90s wringing his hands about the death of authority and "good information". It seemed to me that it always has been a "caveat emptor" world, and some people just got a little too comfortable placing their confidence in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or the local priest, or those smart professors at the university. When it comes down to it, no matter how authoritative the source its still up to the individual to decide if that source is credible or not. It may be more difficult and time consuming but in the end that's how its always been. History is written by the victors, and the press is free to those who own one. Now that "the losers" can still write and we all have our own printing presses history is about to get a lot more interesting. Batten down the hatches, fire up the keyboards and lets take a fresh look at who's credible or authoritative in this new age. If you're concerned about your loss of stature all hope is not lost - now you simply have to prove yourself worthy, now and for as long as you want that consideration. Is that such a big thing to ask for?