This is a response to the question, "How can we distinguish between informative and misinformative sources on the internet?" by @corndog2k2.
Everyone has their own opinions on what is informative and what is not. The internet is stocked full with diverse information. Some information is completely false and deserve the stamp of "misinformation." However, some information is just a harmless spoof or a joke.
A way to distinguish informative sources is to have a board that reviews suspicious information and their sources. This is an approach that is used by some companies. There is also a method where information is reviewed autonomously. The autonomous reviewer looks through content to search for select information that has been flagged as inappropriate or misinformation. This causes several problems on its own due to the limited abilities of an autonomous reviewer. Luckily, there are human reviewers that can double check the decision that was made autonomously. Many times, the human reviewer is only brought into the process once a complaint has been filed by the information's source.
My opinion is that a peer-review process would be best for most information. This gives the option for real people, with some experience with the information, to decide the credibility of that information and/or source. If I were to set up a peer-review process, I would have it where members of a discussion forum can discuss information and its credibility. If there is a call for opinions, would be the ability to cast opinion, aka votes, for credible, not credible, or discussion incomplete. For information that are deemed credible, companies and people can view the discussion to view the explanations given. Cooperation with companies could provide the ability to label information as peer-reviewed. If information is deemed as not credible, the controlling company of the information would be notified of the discrepancy. It would be up to the company to decide on how to handle the problem. When a discussion is "incomplete", the discussion would prevent a follow up vote until a week or longer passes.