The Problem with Online Information

How We Got Here

Before the internet became part of daily life, finding reliable information meant visiting a library or consulting printed encyclopaedias. Those sources had editors, fact checkers and publishing standards. The process was slow, but there was a reasonable expectation that what you read had been verified by someone.

The early web in the 1990s began as a supplement to traditional research, though by the mid-1990s it was already transforming how academics and professionals gathered information. By the mid-2000s, as search engines improved and Google became the dominant way to find things, that balance shifted decisively. Most of us now turn to the internet first for almost any question, from health symptoms to how to fix a leaking tap.

The volume of information online continues to increase rapidly. Billions of web pages exist, and that number keeps rising. More information sounds like a good thing. In practice, it creates a different kind of problem.

When Anyone Can Publish

While the internet offers open publishing opportunities, not all platforms maintain the same level of editorial control. Anyone can put up a website and write whatever they like. Some of that content is excellent. Some of it is poorly researched, out of date, or simply wrong.

There is an old computing phrase: garbage in, garbage out. It applies here. If someone publishes incorrect information, whether through carelessness or deliberate intent, that mistake can spread. Other sites may copy it, quote it, or build on it. Before long, a single error appears in dozens of places, which can make it look more credible than it actually is.

Social media accelerates this problem. Misleading claims can be shared thousands of times before anyone checks whether they are true. Algorithms then amplify content based on engagement rather than accuracy, meaning sensational or emotionally charged material often reaches more people than careful, measured reporting.

This matters most when the stakes are high. Incorrect medical advice, misleading financial guidance, or inaccurate legal information can cause real harm.

Your situation may be slightly different. ask a question below ↓ and our editorial team will reply with our advice.

The Challenge of Knowing What to Trust

Good quality sources do exist online. The problem is that they often sit alongside unreliable ones in search results. Distinguishing between them takes effort and a bit of scepticism.

Some useful starting points:

• Check who published the content. Government websites, established news organisations, universities and professional bodies tend to have editorial standards.
• Look for dates. Outdated information may no longer be accurate, particularly for anything involving law, tax or official guidance.
• Be wary of sites that do not identify their authors or sources.
• Cross check facts with a second source when accuracy matters. Dedicated fact checking websites such as Full Fact can help verify claims that seem questionable.

For anything involving UK law, benefits, tax or official processes, GOV.UK is usually the most reliable starting point. The NHS website is a sensible first port of call for health information. Citizens Advice provides practical guidance on consumer rights, housing and employment.

Free Information Has a Cost

High quality online encyclopaedias and databases often charge for access. Most people are understandably reluctant to pay when free alternatives exist. This creates a situation where well researched content sits behind paywalls while freely available material may be less reliable.

Public libraries in the UK can help here. Many offer free access to subscription databases and online reference resources through a library card. This includes services that would otherwise cost money.

The internet has made information more accessible than ever before. It has not made it more reliable. A willingness to verify what you read, and knowing where to find authoritative sources, will serve you better than assuming everything online can be taken at face value.