I'm not quite sure how to begin looking for information about this question, which may have something to say about the question itself, but it essentially comes down to:
Has the availability of information and the rate of information exchange become an impediment to knowledge?
We tend to imagine that the more information we have, the better, but ask a question of a web browser, and there is often so much information available, so quickly (and so rapidly morphing/growing) that adequate investigation becomes onerous and/or impractical.
Most of us have a very limited time each week to invest in research; the exercise of knowledge accumulation. Many of the questions asked on this site deserve far more thoroughly-researched answers than they receive, largely for this very reason.
When responding to a question recently, I came across an article which went against the status quo, but it did so rather convincingly, providing statistics for each point made. But I was left wondering: am I reasonably expected to investigate the extent to which this article is cherry-picking data? If the answer is yes, then most of the answers this stack provokes are likely woefully inadequate, unless the average user has the inclination and time to put far more effort into the task than I imagine. How do I discern quality information from distracting misinformation? When it comes to complex issues, there is often so much data available that adequate research seems to require a professional, rather than amateur, level of effort. It seems fallacious to rely on certain journals or periodicals when there is no way of knowing how many journals and periodicals are actually of 'sufficient' quality, especially given that these publications must surely fall at times into the same problem of 'sorting the wheat from the chaff'.
With so much information accessible to us, how can we ever be confident that our investigations are sufficient? What persuades us that we have examined enough information in order to provide confident answers? Do we tend to stop when the information we find sufficiently supports the answers we anticipate and/or desire?; which we consciously and/or subconsciously wish to glean (see cognitive ease & cognitive strain? Do we stop when we're proven right as opposed to when we've actually learned something new?
Is there a kind of paradox between the information available to us and the extent to which we are then able to navigate it? Is there a realm of meta-philosophy which deals with the contemporary challenge of superabundance/excess of information, and which provides some kind of method via which we might struggle towards 'truth'?