It used to be that getting written information out to the masses was an involved and formal process.  Your options generally included that you could write for a newspaper or magazine or you could write a book.  You had to be knowledgeable of what you were writing, and very often, you had people reviewing your work, and frequently, you had to site sources to prove what you were saying was true.  Then, if you wrote something that wasn't accurate, or plain out wasn't true, someone would come under fire, and you could even possibly lose your job.

Now, with the ease of online publishing, you are able to put information online in seconds, and the risk associated with publishing inaccurate information is basically nil.  Consider that you can put up a free web site in less than an hour, you can post a blog article in minutes, and you post a message to a discussion board in seconds.  And the fact of the matter is that you can write about virtually anything, and there will be some out there who will believe it because it was online. 

So the question is, when you're reading something online, either on a web site, in a newsletter, or in an email that was forwarded to you, how can you determine the appropriate level of trust in accepting that information as true.

First, consider the source.  Are you reading a scientific article on Discovery News who is known for their scientific articles?  If so, you may want to grant a fairly high level of trust.  Perhaps you're reading an article written by someone who presents a long list of credentials on a site that you don't recognize.  In this case, you might want to do a little searching on that person, their credentials, and on the article itself.  Search for inbound links to the page.  Are there a lot of other sites linking here?  If so, under what context?  Or, are you reading an email message that was forwarded to you, originally written by an unknown or unverified source?

The different methods for researching the validity of an article online vary both in time and value.  You can search Google for inbound links.  This is quick, but might be low in its value.  Writing to known experts in the field is more time consuming, but might have a higher value.  Researching the topic online to see who else has written about it can be time consuming as you will probably want to evaluate the reliability of these articles as well.  Sometimes, articles will get copied over and over online.  Some people try to build sites that attract visitors simply by replicating content they've found online.  Are all references to this topic simply copies of this article?

The point is that too many people will read something online and then take it as fact.  They'll even pass that information along as if it were true, further propagating the misinformation.

You have to choose.  How important is it to you that the information you're reading is true?  Are you planning to use that information, or is it just a point of interest.  Are you going to let it influence your actions - perhaps in an election, or are you planning on passing that information along to others.
Take into consideration how you plan to use the information, how it will affect you and others if it's wrong, and also consider the level of effort required in verifying the information.  After finding the balance, you can make an informed decision as to where your level of comfort is in accepting the written word as truth.

We all have them - a loved member of the family who loves to forward email to everyone in his address book.  It seems innocent enough to him, and in fact, he recently forwarded a message that apparently explained why he forwards all of this email along.  It's because he loves us and wants to keep in touch - at least that's the words of the person somewhere out there who originally wrote that message.

I see this practice to be a bigger problem when it results in the dissemination of false information as if it were fact.

While I find the act of forwarding spam on to friends and family a little irritating, I normally don't think too much about it.  After all, he does manage to keep in touch.  And while most of the mail ends up being deleted (for I am fond of using the Delete Key), I actually find some of it to be somewhat entertaining.

So what is it, you ask, that has be writing about this?  Well, I guess I see this practice to be a bigger problem when it results in the dissemination of false information as if it were fact. 

One recently forwarded spam message told me of Senator Obama's recent trip to Afghanistan and how he completely blew off the troops opting instead to participate in a photo-op playing basketball.  The so-called first-hand report of this was written as if it came from an American Soldier and father of 6 children who is "not a very political person". 

What really bothered me about this message being forwarded to me is that it came from someone I thought wouldn't fall prey to misinformation.  I assumed in my previous dealings with him that he really researched things and spoke from a position of having the facts at hand.  In choosing to pass this message along, however, he didn't even bother to check Snopes (one of my favorite Internet sites!) to see if this was a fact or a just an unsubstantiated rumor.  Instead, he did as so many others do, and chose to forward it on as an opportunity to further his political views with no regard for the truth.  It turns out that this so-called first-hand report is completely false as reported at Snopes. And if you take the time to think about it, what else could it be?  What presidential candidate is going to blow off talking with soldiers in active duty when he knows they're registered voters, and that the act itself is a great photo-op?

The problem here is that too many people will get a message like this and, without doing any verification of the facts, treat it as fact and forward it along as fact.  This simple act, which may be taken as an honest attempt to keep family and friends informed, actually undermines that very goal.

I implore you.  If you have the habit of forwarding messages along to large lists of friends and family, think twice.  Is what you're about to send really helpful, or is it harmful?  Are you spreading misinformation, or are you even possibly passing on a virus?  If you want to send a message to someone because you want to say, "I love you and I'm thinking of you", then just do that.  Personally, I don't need to see a line of dancing animated kittens to get the message.

TerraChoice is a Canadian environmental marketing company with the slogan, "helping grow the world's most sustainable companies."  They recognize and look to combat the rising rate at which companies make dubious claims about the beneficial impacts of their products on the environment.  As part of their efforts, they have published a consumer education document, "The Six Sins of Greenwashing."

1. "The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off" takes place when a company emphasizes some environmentally positive benefit of their product without informing you of several other issues that may completely offset that one positive benefit.
2. "The Sin of No Proof" is the simple act of making claims for which there is no proof or evidence that it is true.
3. "The Sin of Vagueness" misleads consumers with statements that have no real meaning such as, "environmentally-friendly", "chemical-free", or "non-toxic."
4. "The Sin of Irrelevance" emphasizes a supposedly environmentally beneficial fact about a product that has no bearing on the product itself since all of the products in the same category can make the same claim.
5. "The Sin of Fibbing" is just what it implies.  Apparently some companies are not above the act of simple lying.
6. "The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils" suggests to consumers that you should use their product that, while it really isn't good for you or then environment, at least its "green".  A good example of this is organic tobacco.