Among a multitude of innovations, the arrival of the Internet has put up challenges to the quality of information. When traditional news outlets held the monopoly on news it was their duty to provide and to assess the quality of information. They were the filter between the mass of info and the readers.

But who is going to determine quality information standards after the arrival of the Net?
Has the notion of quality changed in the information ecosystem, and if yes, how has it changed? What is the relationship between quality and quantity online?

Answering these questions and facing these challenges is the aim of Fondazione Ahref, an Italian think tank presented last week at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia.

Fondazione Ahref was born in Trento last year and has been inspired by the impressive results of some US non-profit news organizations, like ProPublica or the Knight Foundation.

The Associated Press published a story based on a fake press release yesterday, Business Insider reported, claiming that General Electric would repay its entire $3.2 billion tax refunds to the US Treasury. Thirty-five minutes later, after some news outlets had already picked up the story, AP withdrew the article and advised its customers that it was a hoax. "The AP did not follow its own standards in this case for verifying the authenticity of a news release," said AP Business Editor Hal Ritter, according to ABC News.

A grassroots movement called US Uncut, working together with the notorious activist-prankster group the Yes Men, soon took credit for the hoax. The collective's spokesperson said that the intention was to bring more public attention to corporations that avoid paying taxes. "For a brief moment people believed that the biggest corporate tax dodger had a change of heart and actually did the right thing," the spokesperson said in a statement published on the Yes Men's website.

Big Lead Sports started a rumor that USA Today's decision to pay its workers bonuses based on page views had been taken yesterday, April 7th. Poynter's Jim Romenesko received a statement from Today's Vice President of Communications & Event Marketing Ed Cassidy saying this decision had not yet been made.

Before Cassidy could release his statement, other publications like Mashable and Business Insider had also reported on the event. The event sparked a dialogue on what these bonuses could mean in terms of reporting.

Big Lead didn't state outright that Today had made a final decision. It said, "USA Today had a conference call last night and according to a source, the paper outlined a plan in which it will pay annual bonuses to writers based on page views."

Less that three hours later, Romenesko posted Cassidy's response: "Jim, USA TODAY has and continues to consider bonuses based on page views but nothing has been decided at this time."

In the age of an over-abundance of online information available more or less everywhere, why should readers still rely on newspapers as their news source?

Amongst other reasons, because they are trustworthy and still provide accurate, reliable, and thorough information. And, of course, because they recognize themselves in them.

In the effort to keep readers engaged with the paper, some newspapers are trying to improve their quality of information and underscore their commitment to accuracy and accountability.
That is what The Washington Post and the Register Citizen have done through giving a new way for readers to point out errors and submit correction requests.

As sometimes isn't easy for readers to submit correction requests, The Washington Post recently launched a report-an-error form, with the intention of making the process easier and more efficient, Poynter's Mallary Jean Tenore reported.

The form - the article said - which is displayed on every article page, asks readers to identify the type of error they've spotted and the section it appeared in. It also asks readers, "How can we fix it?" and "What do we need to know to improve future stories on this topic?"