The authors express their deep acknowledgement to the following Brazilian governmental institutions for the support to the research: CAPES - Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement; CNPq – The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development; São Paulo State Univerity – UNESP; Fluminense Federal University – UFF; and The House of Rui Barbosa Foundation – FCRB.
1The term social epistemology, within the scope of Information and Documentation Sciences, was coined by Margaret Egan, in the 1950s, at the University of Chicago Graduate Library School, in a collaborative effort with Jesse Shera and under the strong influence of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey (Martinez-Avila & Zandonade, 2020). Conceived as “the study of those processes by which society as a whole seeks to achieve a perceptive or understanding relation to the social environment – physical, psychological, and intellectual” (Egan & Shera, 1952 : 132), social epistemology arises from the assumption that knowledge – and, in particular, what the object of its organization and representation is – goes beyond the individual dimension of cognition to encompass all knowledge that is filtered by the system of values of a given society, being appropriated by this very society and producing meaning. It is, therefore, a recorded and socialized knowledge so that it can be portable in space and permanent in time (Barité, 2001; Budd, 2002; Smit & Barreto, 2002; Goldman & Blanchard, 2015).
2Also known as Symbolic Interactionism and Social Cognition, social epistemology presupposes an eminently communicative process, permeated by language, and finds its main source of structure in Sociology. To this end, it highlights the way in which knowledge is disseminated in society and the extent to which it influences behavior in different groups, characterizing social cognition (Egan & Shera, 1949; Shera, 1972; 1983; Martinez-Avila & Zandonade, 2020). Fuller (1988 : 3) brings this social appropriation theme to the universe of knowledge organization by mentioning the concern with the different ways in which it can be organized, since human beings interact there, equipped with different bodies of knowledge and with different abilities. Knowledge Organization, from the perspective of social epistemology, is thus conceived as part of a flow of knowledge production, integration, and consumption that, once appropriated by the social fabric, serves as an input for the construction of new knowledge. Thus, the concern is to make knowledge records accessible and understandable in two social contexts: where they originate and where they are retrieved (Shera, 1973; Guimarães, 2008; Martinez-Avila & Zandonade, 2020).
3Context is a key element inherent to the processes, tools, and products of archival knowledge organization and has a multifaceted dimension – legal-administrative, provenancial (which includes the context of use for research in permanent age), functional (evidenced by the record organicity), procedural, documentary, and technological. Consequently, its recognition is essential to the promotion of glocal (global + local) access to knowledge, and deeply testifies the social-epistemological nature of archival science (Tognoli; Schmidt & Guimarães, 2022).
4In this social dynamic of knowledge production, organization, access, and appropriation, the phenomenon of fake news takes on special relevance: as an element of disinformation that crosses different nuclei of society, posing a wide range of threats, such as in the field of health or politics, among others (Dalessandro, 2023). Widely and quickly disseminated, fake news, based on a sophisticated and ingenious “appearance of truth” scheme, presents a concerning problem for Information and Documentation Sciences, since activities aimed at information collection, storage, organization, and dissemination in institutional contexts become more complex, as they begin to demand a closer look at the information reliability treated there.
5As Santos & Santos (2022: 191) point out, the term fake news is “[...] widespread in society, associated with distortion, lies, rumors, manipulation, and indifference about facts and information, especially in the media and in communication vehicles”. In this context, a detachment or even a denial of reality is observed (Beck, 2017) which, going further, reveals an attack position, in which the production of fake news seeks to discredit and delegitimize an opponent as well as to reinforce ideas that support the personal interests and ideologies of its author. Permeated by the one-sidedness of its narrative (that is, only the author’s point of view), fake news is expressed as if it were a fundamental, indisputable truth with persuasive power, which can “cause the disregard of a being, group, religion, identity, etc.” (Santos & Santos, 2022: 192).
6As Neves & Borges (2020: 12) highlight: “Drobnic Holan, a researcher at Columbia University, described in one of his lectures that fake news in the current context is an invented material [...]” masterfully manipulated to look like credible journalistic reports that are easily spread on social media. In these environments, large audiences are willing to believe in this kind of fiction and to spread the word. The phenomenon of fake news – which goes beyond the simplistic dimension of “false information” –, does not account for “[...] the complexity of the contemporary phenomenon of fake news” (Sampaio, 2022: 133). Such complexity is due to the digital use of mass information, making effective containment measures unfeasible, which leads to a rapid and uncritical dissemination of disinformation, taking advantage of a highly sophisticated organization, which alternates the measures adopted to perpetuate its collection of false information. Furthermore, the “success” of fake news is supported by those who hold power and wish to maintain it, bringing effective obstacles to the growth of what could be called “well-informed citizenship” (Sampaio, 2022: 136). As Neves & Borges (2020) summarize:
The proliferation of fake news is the most obvious demonstration of a reality characterized by misinformation. While digital information and communication technologies have granted unparalleled access to information, they have made our inability to deal with this new informational ecosystem manifest, characterized by the coexistence of relevant information with imbecile, healthy information with harmful, useful news with distorted ones. (Neves & Borges, 2020: 20).
7This whole context, in turn, becomes increasingly challenging for Information Science, since the processes, instruments and products of this field of knowledge are permeated by technological (with the use of algorithms; the speed of internet and its diffusion via social networks); political (untruths that can impact the objective of full voting in the light of the concept of universal suffrage) and social (uncritical evaluation capacity on the part of common sense in the appreciation of these false news) issues, in such a way that Information Science can serve as an important “network of protection” in the fight against fake news. Based on a set of contents conveyed in different ways and through apparently attractive but misleading information, the aim is to divert attention from a real problem, and even to confuse, creating an environment of discredit or insecurity regarding reliability of the information broadcasted by mainstream media and, ultimately, leading to error and individual or social harm. Thus, the absence of criteria that allow critical assessment of the degree of information veracity can lead to the danger of monumentalizing common sense as a source of truth and promoting inconsistencies that give rise to unethical actions, such as the wide spread of fake news (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017; Zuckerman, 2017; Barros & Silva, 2020; Estabel; Luci & Santini, 2020; Neves & Borges, 2020). And this problem directly impacts Knowledge Organization, requiring a discussion of a conceptual expansion of the archival principle of provenance (extending its scope beyond the document to also incorporate the content).
8The principle of provenance (respect des fonds) considers that the archival document, as part of an informational universe, must be localized in its fonds and these, in turn, in the place of origin. Based on this principle, documents are produced from a sequential and logical order that derives from the jurisdictional nature of the archive and its fonds so that they can ensure administrative integrity and serve as testimony. Preserving, in their original order, the documents produced as a result of the activities of people and institutions allows the construction of future knowledge from a historical testimony (Heredia Herrera, 1991; Bearman & Lytle, 1985; Rousseau, 1990; Biron, 1991; Duchein, 1992; Cook, 1993; Lodolini, 1995; Martın-Pozuello, 1996; Albuquerque & Souto, 2013; Nesmith, 2015; Guimarães & Tognoli, 2015; Douglas, 2017).
9Nesmith (1999: 146) defines the provenance of a record or body of records as “the societal and technical processes of the records inscription, transmission, contextualization, and interpretation, which account for its existence, characteristics, and continuing history”. According to the French tradition, the principle of provenance is inserted into a broader principle – respect des fonds – side by side with the principle of the original order (Duchein, 1983). Laura Millar, in another sense, proposes the principle of respect of provenance with three components that represent the complexity of the context: the creator history, the records history, and the custodian history (Millar, 2012; Tognoli & Guimarães, 2018).
10In a context in which fake news can even impact official documents, the principle of provenance acquires new dimensions, emphasizing the importance of the document’s producer, creation context, and purpose. This expands the notion of provenance beyond the document’s origin and location to encompass a commitment to ensuring the reliability of its content. Thus, it is feasible to claim that provenance, nowadays, incorporates dimensions of document authenticity (form) – measured through diplomatic and typological analysis, notably from the extrinsic and intrinsic elements of the document (Tessier, 1952) – and informational reliability – measured through content analysis. Such dimensions are crucial for archival documents to fulfill their testimonial and evidentiary function, especially for documents produced or kept in digital format.
11In view of such a scenario, the preservation of evidentiary value (here understood as authenticity + reliability) of archival documents must be prioritized in this moment of uncertainties, especially considering the archival document as a social product that can only be understood when inserted in its own context which, in turn, enhances its nature and use (Thomassen, 2001). And, by acknowledging the social, cultural, and political context of archival documents within a specific time and space, the disastrous effects of disinformation caused by fake news can be effectively tackled, as such phenomenon can even reach official documents.
12As a result, in archives, the political and social agenda and professional ethics indicate that it is absolutely necessary to establish a commitment to the development of methodologies so that informational and documental chaos does not spread. In this sense, it is necessary to recognize, in the first place, the archive producer as a legal or natural person responsible for the production and maintenance of documents that represent his/her actions and social functions in a historical time; secondly, there is the recognition of the archival context from the social, cultural, and political environments, circumscribed to a certain chronological cut, in a condition of exchange between the environments since the archives are not isolated.
13Thus, diplomatic analyses, typological analyses and content analyses come together as essential elements in the process of identifying fake news in the archives’ scenario, including aspects related to disclosing the relationship between the contents and the documentary genesis.
14As observed, the preservation of documentary authenticity and informational reliability in archives involves the task of identifying and maintaining the documents’ characteristics so that they persistently reflect the conditions in which they were produced, both in format and content.
15This implies the presumption that, when we speak of State information, we assume that whatever is recorded in archival documents represents government actions, and that the documents form part of a document management program. But such a presumption does not guarantee that documents or information can be used out of context, or even prevent “placebos” information or documents from being produced for purposes that contribute nothing to society. In this context, the disastrous and chaotic result of disinformation can be combated, for example, when applying, to a fake official document, the methods for preserving the probative value of a document, which identifies the producer of the file, the genesis of the document and its authenticity.
16Archives, similarly to libraries, have the social mission of providing a physical, documentary, and technological structure for the development of “skills to effectively use information and preserve it in order to ensure continuous access to future generations as well as the preservation of collective or social memory” (Ramirez; Hernández & Coello, 2019: 8).
17In the case of fake news, which result from a premeditated, ingenious, and competently executed strategy, developed in a dynamic process, its production may be originated from different sources, whether citizens individually considered, or even institutions or public agents. As a result, it becomes increasingly necessary to assess how information has been created/shared, and the information professional is being required to take a “prophylactic” approach, acting as an effective “anti-fake news agent” to combat the spread of disinformation.
18To this end, actions aimed at knowledge organization and representation must be permeated by the contextualization, expansion and updating of principles –such as the principle of provenance– to address contemporary anti-disinformation needs, in addition to care dedicated-to-information literacy (or education for information) to broaden critical thinking in the information field and the use of fact-checking agencies. This aspect may lead to a turning point in the rise of fake news, thus contributing to the UN 2023 Agenda for Sustainable Development and premises such as “Peace, Justice, and Effective Institutions” (Oliveira & Sousa, 2018; Soares, 2020; Brisola, 2021; De Paor & Heravi, 2020; United Nations, n.d.).
19In addition to the theoretical contribution, pointing out the aspects to be considered in the identification and reporting of fake news, information literacy and its multiple approaches can contribute to the fight against fake news by training users (Eva & Shea, 2018), not restricting it only to formal teaching environments (universities, schools, etc.), where it is more common, but also to public libraries and non-formal teaching situations. The curriculum proposed by Media and Information Literacy - MIL for training educators and learners presents suggestions for content and ways of organizing learning situations in different contexts, emphasizing the importance of public libraries for training ordinary citizens. The proposal is based on three thematic areas: 1 – Knowledge and understanding of information, media, and digital communication, for sustainable development, peace and democratic discourses and social participation; 2 – Evaluation of content and related institutions; and 3 – Production and use of content.
20Lastly, the role of institutions in the discussion and responsibilities regarding fake news is crucial. As “perennial, socially constructed structures that condition the action of individuals and groups” (Couto, 2018: 480), institutions presuppose repeated practices among their members, to which formal norms and rules of conduct are combined. So, information institutions presuppose spaces dedicated to the organization, recovery, and dissemination of information, which take place in the so-called “information units”. According to Macedo & Ortega (2019: 329), based on the reflections of Belluzzo (2007), information units, such as archives, libraries, museums, systems, services and information centers, documentation centers, and others, are intended “to offer products and services that allow its users to access information sources, which will meet their specific informational needs”.
21For this reason and considering the context of production of false information that started in 2016 in the United States and that are being spread in Brazil since 2018, the recognition and appreciation of information institutions – such as archives, libraries, and museums – became very important as the custodians of documents, works and objects that promote access to qualified, reliable information. These institutions have tools that, due to the origin of their data, make it possible to provide qualified information to society, in the form of a database. In view of this, the present paper sought to configure the phenomenon of fake news to arrive at the challenges and perspectives for combating it, especially within the scope of the organization of knowledge. The contextualization and updating of one of the principles of archives – provenance – and the strengthening of information skills can contribute to the contemporary needs for credible information and to combat misinformation.
22The rediscussion on the principle of provenance – with the contribution of knowledge organization – allows the social elements that surround society to be rediscussed and perceived as proposed by the discussion of social epistemology, considering the environment in which we are inserted: the promotion of fake news as part of a larger set that favors misinformation, conflicting with the ethical imperative under which information must be anchored. The challenge represented by this reflection is recognized, without, however, making it impossible that the repositioning of Information Science instruments be revised to face the social, political, and cultural chaos established from misinformation. Thus, the environment created by fake news imposes the reflection on other perspectives of classical principles – such as provenance, where we proposed shifting the discussion from the “origin” to the integrity of its “content” –, allowing the topicality of the discussion and an alternative to combat disinformation.
Flux RSS
-small120.png)
