In this article, we tackle the various challenges which come with defining what exactly is misinformation. It started with using inaccurate beliefs and the need to define ‘accuracy’ pointed towards expert opinion and clear evidence. While this seemed reasonable enough, especially for fields of science and health, there were glaring problems– Who is an expert? Can a medical doctor speak on nutrition or do we need a nutrition specialist? More worrisome, what if the experts do not agree with each other?
These problems led us to rely more on “best available evidence” to define accuracy against misinformation. However, while using this definition, certain factors should be kept in mind, such as- what happens when what was once false, becomes true later, particularly true in the case of emerging issues where “best evidence” is evolving ? And how much support does the evidence need from the experts to be reliable- what happens when a new contradictory study appears or when the evidence is speculative or contradictory? This raises questions about how to communicate information to the public when best evidence is constantly changing.
While answers are being sought, we call for greater transparency where researchers are clear about the evidence and the expertise they are using and are careful about recording evidence of the time of study instead of analysis or later.