Evaluating Internet Research Sources The central work of

Evaluating Internet Research Sources “The central work of life is interpretation”

The Diversity of Information 1 -Traditional information media (books, magazines, organizational documents) Someone has to approve the content before it is made public

The Diversity of Information 2 - Internet sources No one has to approve the content before it is made public As a searcher, it is your job to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs

The Diversity of Information On the Internet, Information exists in a large variety of kinds: Øfacts Øopinions Østories Øinterpretations Østatistics

The Diversity of Information On the Internet, Information is created for many purposes: Øto inform Øto sell Øto present a viewpoint Øto create or change an attitude or belief

How to evaluate Internet sources Getting started: Screening Information • Pre-evaluation: What are you looking for? Ø Facts Ø Opinions ( authoritative or just anyone’s) Ø Reasoned arguments, Ø Statistics Ø Narratives Ø Eyewitness reports Ø Descriptions

How to evaluate Internet sources Getting started: Screening Information • Select sources likely to be reliable: Do sources offer the following information? Ø Author’s name Ø Author’s title or position Ø Author’s organizational affiliation Ø Date of page creation or version Ø Author’s contact information Ø Some of the indicators of INFORMATION QUALITY

How to evaluate Internet sources USER-FRIENDLY ACCESSIBILITY RELIABILITY USABILITY

Information quality • RELIABLE INFORMATON Reliable information serves as the basis for: Øbeliefs Ødecisions Øchoices Øunderstanding our world

Information quality THE C A R S CHECKLIST Credibility Accuracy Reasonableness Support (not workability)

The CARS Checklist • CREDIBILITY: why should I believe this source over another? ØAuthor’s credentials ØEvidence of Quality Control ØMetainformation

The CARS Checklist • CREDIBILITY Author’s credentials ØAuthor’s education/training/experience ØAuthor provides contact information ØOrganizational authorship ØAuthor’s reputation or standing among peers ØAuthor’s position (job function, title)

The CARS Checklist • CREDIBILITY Evidence of Quality Control Ø Information presented on organizational web sites Ø On-line journals that use refereeing (peer review) by editors or others Ø Postings of information taken from books or journals that have a quality control process

The CARS Checklist • CREDIBILITY Metainformation is information about information Summary -Abstracts -Content summaries -Tables of contents Evaluative -Judgment -Analysis of contents (reviews, ratings, commentaries)

The CARS Checklist • Indicators of Lack of CREDIBILITY: Ø Anonimity Ø Lack of Quality Control Ø Negative Metainformation Ø Bad grammar and/or misspelled words

The CARS Checklist • ACCURACY: how can you assure that the information is actually correct (up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive)? ØTIMELINESS ØCOMPREHENSIVENESS ØAUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

The CARS Checklist • ACCURACY Timeliness Ø Up-to-date information: be careful to note when the info you find was created and whether it is still of value (‘old’ not always means ‘useless’!) Ø Dynamic and fluid nature of information: check and re-check your data from time to time (especially in technology, science, medicine, business, and other fields always in flux).

The CARS Checklist • ACCURACY Comprehensiveness Ø Information should be comprehensive Ø Information should not leave out important facts Ø Information should offer qualifications, point out consequences and alternatives as conclusions

The CARS Checklist • ACCURACY Audience and Purpose Ø Take into account the audience and the purpose of the information Ø Be sure that the information is appropriate to them Ø Be sure that the intended audience and purpose are appropriate to your requirements

The CARS Checklist • Indicators of Lack of Accuracy: Ø No date on the document Ø Vague generalizations Ø Old date on information known to change rapidly Ø Very one sided view

The CARS Checklist • REASONABLENESS: is the information Øfair ? Øobjective ? Ømoderate ? Øconsistent ?

The CARS Checklist • REASONABLENESS Fairness A site should present its information in an accurate manner: Øpossess a calm tone Øuse a reasoned tone Øbe cautious of highly emotional writing

The CARS Checklist • REASONABLENESS Objectivity ØBe neutral as much as possible ØAvoid conflict of interests

The CARS Checklist • REASONABLENESS Moderateness Ø Is the information believable and valid? Ø Does it make sense? Ø If the information is surprising or hard to believe, give evidence and support it.

The CARS Checklist • REASONABLENESS Consistency ØInformation/argument should not contradict itself (be coherent!) ØInformation/argument should not be influenced by the writer’s view of the world

The CARS Checklist • Indicators of Lack of Reasonableness: Ø Intemperate tone or languages (‘stupid jerks’) Ø Overclaims (‘Thousands of children are murdered every day in the United States’) Ø Sweeping statements of excessive significance (‘This is the most important idea ever conceived’) Ø Conflict of interest

The CARS Checklist • SUPPORT: how can I support my information? Citing sources strengthens the credibility of the information. ØSource documentation or bibliography ØCorroboration ØExternal consistency

The CARS Checklist • SUPPORT Source documentation or bibliography Ø What kind of support for the information is given? Ø Where did this information come from? Ø Are the sources listed? Ø Is there a bibliography or other documentation?

The CARS Checklist • SUPPORT Corroboration Ø See if other sources support this source Ø Confirmability corroborates the truth Ø Find, at least, 3 sources that agree with your findings

The CARS Checklist • SUPPORT External consistency Ø Compare what is familiar (corroborated) in the new source with what is familiar in other sources Ø There must be coherence among different sources about the same information

The CARS Checklist • Indicators of Lack of Support: Ø Numbers or statistics presented without an identified source for them Ø Absence of source documentation when the discussion clearly needs such documentation Ø You cannot find any other sources that present the same information or acknowledge that the same information exists