next »

[tee_bee]

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.

Chime. I once had a student who quoted the "National Center for Policy Analysis" as if it were some neutral source. It took me five minutes to find out who they really are, a right wing pro-business group. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a good source.

A good resource for checking out who is behind what organization is sourcewatch.org, although this is a left-leaning group. Grains of salt all around.

[ranganathan]

A cautionary note about bogus sites (and shortcuts to evaluating)-

I avoid showing these to students because it plays right into their black-and-white thinking: a Website is either totally bad (bogus sites) or just fine.  So if it's not a hoax site, it must be okay.  

Checklists that most libraries provide also tend to be dualistic in nature, but in fact, evaluating a source is incredibly variable depending on your topic and your need.  It's all fine and dandy for a checklist to say that a Website should be 'current' but 'current' for 2012 presidential election topics is completely different than how 'current' you need your sources to be for your paper on the Alamo.  

I've had students who tell me this Website about autism research is valid because the author has a PhD, and therefore, according to the checklist, is An Authority.  And then I point out the PhD is in basketweaving, not health or psychology or any field related to oh, autism.

Or how about .com?  I have students chant to me that .com is bad.  But guess what? Most of our library databases are .com, so I had students telling me they couldn't use the databases.  Think .org is good? Go to www.beef.org for a fun time.  So I avoid sweeping statements about 'trust this domain, not that one.'

Web evaluation is all about the shades of gray.  In my library workshops, we talk about general categories to look for, and then how it's necessary to identify what criteria would serve as a 'gold standard' for a particular topic.  So for our paper on fast food, we want sources written by nutritionists.  For our paper on Alexander McQueen, having a blog from a fashion guru is fine.  

For my 3-credit course, I restrict students to items which have been published in a book, magazine, journal or newspaper, and give them a form to petition to use a Website.  The form has them analyze the site: Who wrote it? Why are they an expert on this topic?  Is the content well written?  What year was it published and does that effect your topic?  What site publishes this page?  

Basically, it's like a checklist, but veers away from the good/bad black/white and towards a more thoughtful, question-answer approach.

Okay, getting off my soapbox now...

[mixedmetaphor]

For my 3-credit course, I restrict students to items which have been published in a book, magazine, journal or newspaper, and give them a form to petition to use a Website.  The form has them analyze the site: Who wrote it? Why are they an expert on this topic?  Is the content well written?  What year was it published and does that effect your topic?  What site publishes this page?  

Basically, it's like a checklist, but veers away from the good/bad black/white and towards a more thoughtful, question-answer approach.

This is an awesome idea!

[coalminecanary]

I bring several sources on the same topic and show them the difference. For example, I recently gathered sources of "information" on vaccine safety from a person's blog, a women's magazine, a newspaper, a brochure, the CDC website, JAMA, etc. i asked the students to help me with a scavenger hunt to find things like:
Who is the author?
Who funded this?
Is the information current?
Is it peer reviewed?
What research supports/negates the claims?
The students can't find much on many of the sources. I then ask them which source they would trust and why if they had to make a vaccination decision for a child.

[jenra]

http://www.library.arizona.edu/tutorials/evaluating_web_resources/

From the University of Arizona. 

[larryc]

I used to do a lesson where the students got a set of guidelines for evaluating internet sites (maybe one of the links above) and a list of three sites to review. The first two were the same for everyone. for the third site I chose a different fake website for everyone. For example HISTORY OF ROBOTS IN THE VICTORIAN ERA: http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/intro.html. I can't find the list of fake websites I used to locate them but here is one: http://www.philb.com/fakesites2.htm

Then in class I would have students show their third website to the class and explain what it was. About half would always present their fake site as if it were real, and the other students say "Are you kidding me? That is fake, dude!"

It was always a fun lesson.

[fiona]

Great info and suggestions here. Thank you muchly, and keep posting 'em.

The Fiona

[gbrown]

Our writing tutors use something called the "CRAP Test." I always remember it's Credibility, Reliability, Authority, and I forget the rest. Google it. Good stuff.