next »

[fiona]

Anyone got a good handout/link with directions for students about how to tell whether an Internet source is trustworthy?

This has to do with finding info about authors, famous people, and/or famous literary works. Does anyone have a source that'll tell students, in a general way, what shouldn't be trusted, besides Wikipedia?

I know this is a big, vague question, but any sources will be useful, and thanks.

The Fiona

[mixedmetaphor]

This isn't particularly academic, but in freshman/sophomore courses with research components I google Eddie Murphy in class.  The fourth hit that comes up is a detailed story about how he died on a movie set in 2009 after being hit by a concrete slab and thrown from a helicopter.  The students all giggle at the absurdity, of course, but our conversation turns to how unreliable a simple google search can be for finding factual, reliable information.  I've also been known to alter a Wikipedia page in class to show how easy it is to change the record and, for material that's not "hot," how long it can take for someone to catch on and change things back to normal.

As for general tips, I like to show students how they should backtrack on websites.  After reading, say, an article that's from the Heritage Foundation, we've pored over the entire website and critically analyzed the "About" page to discuss bias in writing and how funding and agendas affect material.  They often don't think to go back to square one with websites.  Modeling how easy it is to backtrack (and asking them to consider what an absence of info means when backtracking) puts the onus on them.

[mystictechgal]

Simplistic, but when I advise fellow students (or, previously, coworkers) who ask or are on a team with me, I suggest they (when we're dealing with things that may not be of the academic journal variety)! look first for .org or .edu or .gov sites. Other potential sites may be mainstream .com press (magazines/papers/on-line pubs that have some standing and refer--at minimum, by allusion, best with a link to the underlying research discussed--but, something that might lead someone to whatever depths they plumbed to write the story--at least knowing the province, even if you can't plumb it, yourself). Then I suggest that they need to see if whatever they have found--looking first at the article and then at the site and other things they have published--particularly if the site is relatively unknown--to see if it appears that an axe is being ground. If so, it doesn't rule out the source or the information; it does mean that more research may be needed to see if someone else might be grinding the axe from another side, or another angle. Someone else that also has to be vetted. Both should be considered, but both have to be found. An axe with one edge is useless, and should generally be discounted. If there is, or has been, no controversy, what is there to be discussed or argued? Any article or work that doesn't at least nod to that, and the question(s) being investigated, is, essentially, an opinion piece.

It's the same thing I learned to do when I was preparing for debate, way back when I was in HS, before the Internet. It's just easier (in some ways) now.

Don't know if that will be helpful in your case, but that's kind of my template--even when reading journal articles published in reputable journals. It's served me well, so far. (And, if my template is wrong now, I'd like to hear it before I get any farther in my studies, so go at it, please.)

[new99]

I found this page useful when teaching students about research and evaluating sources. It has guidelines and a checklist:
http://www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/evaluate/?page=websites

This one is a bit more involved, but also looks useful:
http://library.albany.edu/usered/eval/evalweb/

[quietly]

Anyone got such a resource I could share with my relative who always sends me links to websites "proving" that climate change is a hoax, that scientists are colluding with the FDA to cover up the cure for cancer or that evolution is a plot to turn us all into devil worshippers?

Kidding.

(kind of)

Q.

[erictho]

Dan Brown, Angels and Demons, is useful here:

[Langdon] "Had you heard the name before?"
[Kohler] "Not until I saw it branded on Mr. Veta."
"So you ran a web search for it?"
"Yes."
"And the word returned thousands of references, no doubt."
"Thousands," Kohler said. "Yours, however, contained references to Harvard, Oxford, a reputable publisher, as well as a list of related publications. As a scientist I have come to learn that information is only as valuable as its source. Your credentials seemed authentic." (Angels and Demons, 35; emphasis mine).

[anakin]

Anyone got such a resource I could share with my relative who always sends me links to websites "proving" that climate change is a hoax, that scientists are colluding with the FDA to cover up the cure for cancer or that evolution is a plot to turn us all into devil worshippers?

Kidding.

(kind of)

Q.

Unfortunately, the only one I know of relies on a Flash cluebat, and not all browswers support Flash any more.

[prof_cj]

This isn't particularly academic, but in freshman/sophomore courses with research components I google Eddie Murphy in class.  The fourth hit that comes up is a detailed story about how he died on a movie set in 2009 after being hit by a concrete slab and thrown from a helicopter.  The students all giggle at the absurdity, of course, but our conversation turns to how unreliable a simple google search can be for finding factual, reliable information.  I've also been known to alter a Wikipedia page in class to show how easy it is to change the record and, for material that's not "hot," how long it can take for someone to catch on and change things back to normal.

As for general tips, I like to show students how they should backtrack on websites.  After reading, say, an article that's from the Heritage Foundation, we've pored over the entire website and critically analyzed the "About" page to discuss bias in writing and how funding and agendas affect material.  They often don't think to go back to square one with websites.  Modeling how easy it is to backtrack (and asking them to consider what an absence of info means when backtracking) puts the onus on them.

This is pretty much the same thing I do. It tends to surprise a lot of them into going to the library to do their research.

[mountainguy]

Our subject specialist librarian always starts her class presentations by showing students examples of bogus websites that come up in Google searches. Some examples include:

Martin Luther King: A True Historical Examination. This website purports to be an "objective" look at MLK, but is actually maintained by the white supremacist group Stormfront. There are usually audible gasps from students when the librarian reveals this.

California's Velcro Crop Under Challenge: Purports that California's ability to grow velcro has been threatened by natural disasters.


Once she has students' attention, she then talks about elements of source credibility, like author credentials, sponsorship, and the ability to verify sources. I've also learned from her presentations that students do much better with information literacy lessons if they already have a topic in-hand, especially if you give them time during the lesson to do a preliminary search and to share their results.

[blokus]

Not a handout, but I do a couple of things:

1. I tell students that they can use online sources that are peer reviewed journals or government web sites. If they want to use any other online source, they have to get specific permission from me, which requires them to send me an email explaining the purpose for which they want to use the source (data? factual information? analysis?) and why this source is a reliable source for that purpose. If they actually have to articulate why it's reliable (rather than assuming it is), that seems to give them the appropriate pause.

2. I require (as everyone does, but I realize students don't seem to get this) that they cite online sources fully, which means that a URL is not a citation. They have to include the author, publisher (i.e. sponsoring organization, publication etc.), data written or published as well as date accessed. Sometimes they tell me they don't know who wrote something or where it came from etc., in which case I respond "How do you know the information is trustworthy if you don't even know who wrote it?"

[anakin]

MG, I've seen the velcro farm site before, but not the MLK site. Eww.

It did remind me of an example I've used in intro bio, ecology, and bio fer teechers: Dihydrogen Monoxide.

[amlithist]

I also use the MLK and DHMO sites with my Comp I and II students, as well as this one on Lake Michigan Whale Watching, the fake World Trade Organization site, Genochoice, and the ever-popular Hetracil site.  (The latter, which is oh-so-wrong, sometimes provokes earnest arguments among my students, but more often, they think it's a good idea and have people they think need a prescription.  ::sigh::)  I also like this one, which sells dehydrated water (it's "compact, lightweight, easy to store, and perfect to take wherever you go. It's free of toxins, chemicals, lead, minerals, and almost every other dangerous substance you can think of."  Who wouldn't want some?)

I love spoof websites.

ETA:  for anything lower than senior-level students, I ban websites as sources for their papers.  Personally, I don't use any web sources unless I can routinely verify their stuff in at least three print sources, so it takes me awhile to get to where I trust any given site.   And students aren't going to go to that trouble.  I do encourage them to use the library databases, Lexis-Nexis, et al., though.

[libwitch]

http://library.binghamton.edu/research/guides/webcheck.html

(chances are good that your library probably has a page that is similar)

[anakin]

I also use the MLK and DHMO sites with my Comp I and II students, as well as this one on Lake Michigan Whale Watching, the fake World Trade Organization site, Genochoice, and the ever-popular Hetracil site.  (The latter, which is oh-so-wrong, sometimes provokes earnest arguments among my students, but more often, they think it's a good idea and have people they think need a prescription.  ::sigh::)  I also like this one, which sells dehydrated water (it's "compact, lightweight, easy to store, and perfect to take wherever you go. It's free of toxins, chemicals, lead, minerals, and almost every other dangerous substance you can think of."  Who wouldn't want some?)

I love spoof websites.

ETA:  for anything lower than senior-level students, I ban websites as sources for their papers.  Personally, I don't use any web sources unless I can routinely verify their stuff in at least three print sources, so it takes me awhile to get to where I trust any given site.   And students aren't going to go to that trouble.  I do encourage them to use the library databases, Lexis-Nexis, et al., though.

Damn you, amlithist, you owe me a keyboard! " 'Would electroconvulsive therapy be a good treatment for me? Why or why not?' "

Unfortunately, some of our students aren't going to get it. Why, here are some of them right here, discussing Hetracil.

[macadamia]

Another bogus site about bariatric surgery for babies:

http://www.babybariatrics.com/