A librarians search for truth

When I became a librarian, I had no thought that I would be involved in deep philosophy, but I find that I am becoming more interested in "how one knows if something is true." Part of the impetus behind this interest is due to Web 2.0 and all the new sources of information that are available out there. The second is due to my eroding faith in traditional sources of information: newspapers, TV, and radio. (My blog of October 7 talks about the centralization of media ownership and lack of accountability that this fosters.)

Then, in the book Everything is Miscellaneous, David Weinberger discusses the impact that Wikipedia's community of interested parties has on the accuracy of its articles and throws the ultimate responsibility to determine what is truth back in our faces:

Deciding what to believe is now our burden. It always was, but in the paper-order world where publishing was so expensive that we needed people to be filters, it was easier to think that our passivity was an inevitable part of learning; we thought that knowledge just worked that way.

Further, he says:

In a miscellaneous world, an OZ-like authority that speaks in a single voice with unshakable confidence is a blowhard. Authority now comes from enabling inescapably fallible creatures to explore the differences among us, together. p 143

So, how does one recognize what is true on the internet, in a newspaper, from our government, or a neighbor? The Buddha in the Kalama Sutra was asked how one could determine the truth when two groups of priests and monks were espousing diametrically opposed doctrines:

They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable priests & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"

In other words, what are the hallmarks of truth? How can we know truth when we hear it?

The Buddha suggested the following:

1. That views must be tested by the results that they yield when put into practice. (Is the fact consistent with what we know of the world?)
   
2. That they must be checked against the experience of people who are wise. (The opinions of a community of interested parties can help us.)
   
3. That views of those who are greedy, have aversions or delusions are suspect.
4. Views of those who have goodwill, compassion, awareness and equanimity are preferred.
   

Weinberger suggests the following criteria to determine the reliability of Wikipedia articles:

1. Is the article so minor that few people will have worked it over?
2. Are there obvious signs of a lack of NPV (neutral point of view)
3. Is the article badly written and organized?
4. Are there any notes or debates on the discussion page? (evidence of input from the wise)
5. Does it cohere with what we know of the world?

I would be interested in hearing other ideas about what constitutes "hallmarks of truth".