**4. Results**

The statistical results, which are of a descriptive nature, allow us to describe the state of the art about this research through the calculation of relative frequency (fi). In total, the study sample is made up of N = 216 libraries geographically distributed in countries such as Argentine (1%), Australia (1%) Canada (5%), France (20%), Ireland (2%), Italy (8%), Netherlands (2%), Spain (8%), United Kingdom (8%), United States (42%), Qatar, New Zealand, and Costa Rica, whose practices against disinformation originated in 2017 (8%) and continued thereafter in 2018 (6%), 2019 (4%), 2020 (8%), and 2021 (8%); the majority— 65%—do not have a specific date (undated). The fact that we find the first ones from 2017

is justified in that it was that year when the term fake news was used the most, which is why the prestigious Oxford Dictionary designated it as word of the year. Previously, in 2016, post-truth had been the chosen word and, already then, there was talk of the need to combat hoaxes.

Regarding libraries that have resources to help users deal with misinformation (RQ1), we find different types of ownership (Figure 1), with public university libraries (56%) being the most active in this regard, among which we find names such as "Penn State University Libraries" (United States) or the "University of Amsterdam Library" (Netherlands). In second place are the public libraries (24%) such as "Biblioteca Pública de Navarra" (Spain) or "La bibliothèque publique d'Information (Center Pompidou)" (France). Behind these, there are also the private university libraries (9%); this is the case of the "High Point University Library" (United States) or the "Bodleian Libraries Oxford University (United Kingdom), while libraries constituted as a non-governmental association represent 6% of the sample, such as the "American Libraries Association" (United States) or "Biblioteca de Caudete" (Spain). The public libraries association (3%) includes the "Network of municipal libraries of Seville" (Spain) and, finally, the digital libraries (1%), including the "Network of municipal libraries of Barcelona (Virtual Library)" and the "School Library Association" (United Kingdom), represent the most minority models.

Eighty-six percent of the practices are an initiative of the library itself; 7% are in cooperation with a public entity/institution; 3% are in cooperation with a media communication; 1% are in cooperation with a private institution; and the remaining 3% represent public and private institutional cooperation.

These libraries stand out for their work in helping users cope with disinformation (RQ2). Among the most common practices, we find a model that is repeated, as can be seen in Figure 2: 56% of libraries have a kind of open-access container on their web pages, with very varied resources, including audiovisual materials (videos, audios, interactive, and quizzes), guidelines (guidelines to identify informational disorders, on how to evaluate the credibility of a source, learn about concepts related to the phenomenon of misinformation, etc.), links (to web pages reference), reports (on the state of the art, such as what is posttruth, what is fake news, what we face, and how vulnerable users are), and bibliographies (catalogs of topics with the latest scientific publications and information that explain the phenomenon of disinformation).

**Figure 2.** Type of library practice. Source: prepared by the authors.

To classify these practices, their titles were also considered. Some examples are listed in Table 1:



Source: prepared by the authors.

These contents (RQ3) are presented under different formulas; half (50%) genuinely belong to the library (many of them include the librarian's signature). An example of this is checklists such as the CRAAP test, created by Sarah Blakeslee (University of Chico Library, California, 2004); the TRAAP-Source Evaluation, created by Caitlin Stewart (Library of Washington, 2020); the SIFT-Source Evaluation, a four-step method to quickly ascertain the accuracy of social media posts and websites by using fact-checkers' strategies of crossreferencing information, created by Carol Fisher (University of Washington Library, 2020); and the checklist of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA, 2017). Other libraries (38%) include, in addition to library resources, third-party materials (this is when their own content is added or enriched with links to reference web pages, fact-checking media, prepared media literacy videos by the media, etc.). For example, some libraries embed on their websites video tutorials produced by media such as Buzfeed, CNN, Poynter, BBC, and Find the Facts, and even materials generated by institutions or organizations (such as First Draft), or others that are the result of competitive projects against disinformation (such as the European projects We Verifiy, Debunker, Co-Inform, etc.). Finally, there are those library websites that directly host third-party open-access resources (12%) or are limited to linking to reference sites.

The recipients of these practices (RQ4) are university students (55%), in line with the results obtained on the type of ownership of the library. As discussed above, more than half are public university libraries. The explanation for this may be that it is in the university stage when students need to resort to more sources to prepare their academic works or to complete their notes and, therefore, they make more intensive use of library services during this time.

The second most frequent profile for which these initiatives are designed is adult users of libraries in general (22%), which also corresponds to the fact that the second most common category of library is publicly owned, as has already been mentioned. Third, in a small percentage, 7%, it is found that librarians themselves are the target audience of libraries. This result may respond to the need expressed by researchers, in the theoretical section, to train library experts so that they can help users (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** Type of library. Source: prepared by the authors.

Regarding the learning model that these practices favor (RQ5), it is worth highlighting self-learning above the rest of the formats (64%), which undoubtedly requires an effort on the part of the user who must navigate through these contents autonomously. The reason for this learning to be individual is that, at present, it is not compulsory training, although some institutions are beginning to include related contents among their regulated/compulsory training. On the other hand, we have become accustomed to being self-taught online. To facilitate this experience in acquiring knowledge, the resources, materials, etc., are

perfectly organized and hierarchical for on-demand learning, in such a way that the menu is designed so that each topic/exercise makes sense on its own alone, but as a whole, if you interact with everything, the user's vision is much more complete and the level of learning, therefore, is greater. As can be seen in Figure 4, the librarian also plays a fundamental role as a mediator of these activities (23%). Most of the practices offer a form to contact the librarian or, directly, their corporate contact information. This reveals, as defended in theory, the figure of closeness that these professionals represent for users.

**Figure 4.** Libraries' practice trainer or responsible. Source: prepared by the authors.

Already to a lesser extent, an association that seems to work in the fight against disinformation is that of the popular "Triad of Truth-Workers" [3], since 6% are librarians, professor-researchers, and journalists who watch over the truth from their field of knowledge.

Finally, and taking into account the definition of competencies related to disinformation [27] (RQ6), the results obtained show that the most frequent practices offered by libraries are those that combine fact-checking skills and critical thinking (67%), followed by those specific to spot fake news (19%), as seen in Figure 5.

Among the former are, for example, exercises to learn to search for information; evaluating the credibility of sources; training the gaze through manipulated or distorted images; lateral reading to check understanding of a text and its purpose/intention; and understanding in depth the effects of misinformation. In the case of practices categorized as spot fake news, it is observed that the competences are more limited, and they focus on automating the activation of certain senses and mechanisms to learn to discern reliable content from that which tries to deceive us.

**Figure 5.** Competences that favor library practices. Source: prepared by the authors.

#### **5. Discussion and Conclusions**

In 2019, within the framework of the 15th International Library Congress entitled Fake News: Information and Libraries, the workshop "Libraries that fight against fake news" was held. In this context of exchange of experiences, many of the practices that this article collects, with their limitations, came to light. This exploratory research collects and describes all those ways in which librarians are developing all their creativity and knowledge to contribute to the solution of global problems such as infodemic and disinformation [28]. Thus, they will be able to enter with solvency and knowledge into the circles in which the conversation about contributions against disinformation takes place [1] because, as authors say, librarians are essential in this mission, together with teachers and journalists [3].

The skills and abilities that are activated with the use of the tools, instruments, resources, materials, activities, examples, videos, tutorials, eLearning courses, checklists, etc., provided from the libraries, are the most effective tools for learning to seek information and evaluate it according to its rigor, thus responding to the demand of the scientific community for tangible learning [21]. In fact, many of these resources are based on the practices and routines of verification professionals.

On the other hand, all this effort by libraries demonstrates a self-demand to continue being useful to citizens, and they have proven to be so; during the largest known wave of infodemic, generated because of COVID-19 [28], they have been a fundamental ally. An example of this can be found in the seminar entitled: "Incertitude, <sup>v</sup>érité, débat: on parle Fake News dans le séminaire #BiblioCovid19", organized by L'École nationale supérieure des sciences de l'information et des bibliothèques de l'Université de Lyon; in the open-resource guide prepared by the Public Library of Navarra (Spain), "COVID-19 What should we know"; in the resources provided by the American Libraries Association in the repository: "Libraries Respond: Fighting Xenophobia and Fake News in Light of COVID-19"; or in the open materials of the École nationale supérieure des Sciences de L'information et des bibliothèques de l'Université de Lyon (France) under the name: "Fake News à l'heure de la covid 19". The case of specialized health libraries that have partnered with journalism professionals to offer truthful and contrasted information on the virus or vaccines, such as the Public Health England Library, is significant.

This work also talks about the flexibility of the institutions and library staff when responding to upcoming informational phenomena born from the digital context. All this is done the sole intention of laying the foundations of a well-informed, critical, and responsible society in the consumption and creation of information. In this sense, libraries have another challenge, such as facing the unaffordable production of digital documents that will affect their work routines because it will be increasingly difficult to decide, due to their quality, which sources are most reliable. Accordingly, libraries may need to incorporate verifying journalists among their professionals to work in cooperation with librarians, archivists, and documentation specialists in the future.

Just as in Spain there is the Instituto Salud Sin Bulos, through which medical professionals report, together with information professionals, about rumors, hoaxes, myths, and fake news related to health, work for which they have received training from fact-checkers, librarians could constitute a reference group to disseminate keys that help public opinion to function in a more informatively complex world.

Finally, future studies should approach the users of libraries to really measure the effectiveness of the practices analyzed in this work [21], asking them directly about their perceived self-competence before and after using the resources provided by these institutions.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, P.H.-D. and C.L.-R.; methodology, P.H.-D.; software, P.H.-D.; validation, P.H.-D. and C.L.-R.; P.H.-D.; investigation, P.H.-D. and C.L.-R.; data curation, P.H.-D.; writing—original draft, P.H.-D.; writing—review and editing, P.H.-D. and C.L.-R.; visualization, P.H.-D.; supervision, P.H.-D. and C.L.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
