Web Bias

Many of the readings this week echo the same theme - that to evaluate information on the web, you should follow a series of review steps to help put the data in context.

Examine the Source:
   Who is the author?
   What is her/his expertise?
   What is the level of objectivity presented?

Examine the Site:
   Who is the registered owner of the site?
   What does the URL analysis tell you ( do not confuse with urine analysis)

Examine the Material:
   What is the date of publication? Age of data? "Currency"
   What outside / alternate support is there for what is claimed?
   What is the Publication body? Is it peer-reviewed?

These steps make sense, depending upon your purpose. For example, if you were looking at a critique of a literary work, or painting, the "currency" of the piece may have no relevance, especially if written by a past scholar. So, I think that for me there is a clear distinction about how I handle information that is meant to be opinion versus information that is presented as fact. Opinion is always interpreted with "a grain of salt", as no one is without bias... you just have to figure out where that bias lies, and if there is any truth/facts behind their allegations or points in their supporting argument. Here, other established sources - renowned organization like the NSF, CDC, NPR - will help one to assess the basis for the opinion.

So, in evaluating the readings for this blog posting, I am going to keep it in the context of information presented as fact.

Alan November's article and video about investigating source's was very insightful (http://novemberlearning.com/resources/information-literacy-resources/v-find-the-publisher-of-a-website/").

It is hard to believe that adults would not quickly detect the scam of the information on the MartinLutherKing.org site, but clearly the public's willingness to accept anything spoken or written as fact, especially when it comes from official channels (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?) makes me nervous. So, he has a valid point - especially for children, who do not have the experience or critical thinking skills yet developed to truly evaluate information. Teaching them to do this at a young age is a great idea, to get them on the path of questioning before trusting.

The Teaching Legal Professional How to Do Research article
(http://www.virtualchase.com/quality/checklist_print.html) provided very concrete steps to take and interesting examples of their points (although some are already taken down, like the CIA radiation article... wanted to read that one!).

Domain ownership can be useful in the evaluation process, but it is quite easy for people to register a site under a false name or the name of a company, and now, there is the ability to shield your name from general searches to the WhoIs? DB, so this step may soon be obsolete. (They're going to have to monitor the "currency" of their information as well!)

"About Us" and bios on the site can be interesting, but remember they are created with a Marketing view (not offense to my marketing brethren), so using them as a source for assessment? Eh, not so much.

As per my post, I'm dismissing the whole degree verification thing, as that is not public info, but I think it does make sense to see if they are cited in other articles (established journals, best if peer-reviewed).

Decoding the URL to glean information is an interesting idea. But, folks have servers in their home, so trying to elucidate the nature of the relationship between the article and the publishing body is not easy. ~ is not going to mean much, nor is the fact that they use style sheets, or standards common to an enterprise-level organization. Software these days makes all of that available to the common folk.

I'm not completely comfortable with their presentation on objectivity - rarely do people discuss both sides of an issue - but if we are looking at what are purported to be facts, then there should be some recognition of the opposing view or evidence and a refutation using actual data. Looking at the ads that appear on the site is an interesting idea... again, probably won't work most of the time, because the ads are supplied by the hosting entity. (see the Google ads on several of the example sites?) 


Currency of the information or supporting facts is definitely something to look at, but the authors themselves talk about the difficulty in finding the true date, without the implementation of a semantic web.

Locating sources that support or refute the information is critical... then you can evaluate both the preponderance of the supporting information along with its sources.

The Johns-Hopkins incident points to the importance of thorough research, but I have to be honest - I don't believe the explanation given. I doubt very much that all the studies that pointed to the danger of the test chemical were dated in the 1950s, and that no subsequent study ever mentioned this issue. Poor research, yes. The database's fault (for ending in 1966), I doubt it. Take responsibility.

Finally, I have to say that I found the section on phishing and emails to be somewhat out of place. Phishing emails do not come to you providing research information, so either they need to change the name of the article from "How to Do Research" to "How to Evaluate Information" or they need to let this section go. Phishing is just one of a host of computer attacks (I know, I wrote a course on it) to obtain information from either users or from companies. Generally, it is used for "evil purposes", but sometimes the hacker just uses it for bravado.

In any event, it all comes under the category of critical thinking, and has enhanced my learning of this topic.