|
Critical Surfing
Keep in mind when visiting web sites that you need to be critical
thinkers as you surf. A thing is not true or factual simply because someone has posted it
to the web. Unlike other electronic media, there are no limitations on net information.
Radio and TV stations have to be careful not to air inaccurate information because they
are market-driven businesses. Too much bad information and they will loose their
advertisers. This is not the case with information posted on the Internet.
Too, there are no legal limitations on what someone can put on
their web site. I have seen several sites that claim that the holocaust never happened and
that man has never actually been in space … that both are hoaxes. We know that is not
true. However, people are allowed to say whatever they wish on the net.
This is, in my opinion, not necessarily a bad thing. Freedom of
speech – even stupid speech – is the cornerstone of a democracy. Too, outrageous
speech often makes us think. The only time stupid speech is dangerous is if the reader is
not critical … if the reader believes everything that is read. It is important then
not to regulate speech, but to teach people to be critical surfers. I am sharing my
favorite tool with you here. Keep in mind that not every idea given below will apply to
every site. However, this is an excellent way to critique sites.
Compare this site to sites on
the same or similar subjects.
 | Of the sites you have looked at on this subject, is the best place
to get information? |
| Is the material at this site useful, unique, or accurate or is it
derivative, repetitious, or suspicious? |
| Does the site contain original information or only links? |
| Is there a conflict between the information found on this site and
information found on similar sites? If so, can you determine why? |
| Was this site linked off of another site? If so, how would you
judge the previous site? |
| Look at the URL extension. Government (.gov) and education (.edu)
sites may be more reliable than some organization (.org) or communication (.com) sites.
Any one can get a .org or .com extension. That’s not true of .gov and .edu
extensions. |
Rate the visuals, the ease of
navigation, the organization of the site, and the ‘freshness’ of the material.
| Be careful when judging visuals. Simply because a site has lots of
bells and whistles doesn’t mean that its material is valid. |
| Do the graphics and art serve a function or are they merely
decorative? |
| In fact, when rating the visuals ask yourself if the amount of
‘stuff’ is hiding the lack of information. |
| Does the text follow basic rules of grammar, spelling and literary
composition? |
| Is there an element of creativity, and does it add to or detract
from the document itself? |
| Many sites are very difficult to navigate. There may be lots of
information there … if you can only find it! Sites should be rated for this. A
well-organized site will be easy to understand and navigate. |
| Is there a copyright date given? |
| Finally, look for a ‘this site last updated on
MM/DD/YY’
label. Not all sites have this but if your does it will most likely be at the bottom of
the page. A site that was last updated three years ago may well contain out-of-date and
wrong information. Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover … how well
maintained a site is can be very telling. |
Initial impressions are
important.
| When you first arrive at the site did you get the impression that
the language or tone were biased? Be careful! If the bias is in a direction with which you
agree you may not notice it. Bias is bias, however. |
| A biased web site may not be inaccurate but it is more likely to
be so than one that takes a neutral/objective stance. |
| What is the purpose of the site? Is it clearly stated? |
| Is the purpose of the site to teach something or to sell
something? Sites that are selling an idea are more likely to present inaccurate or
unbalanced information. |
| To what extent is the information trying to sway the opinion of
the audience? |
| What is the intended target audience of the site? If you can
determine at whom the site seems to be aimed, you can often make assumptions about its
stance on things. |
| Never assume that extremist points of view are easy to detect.
Many extremist sites are designed to look educational. |
Turn the role around.
| Now that you have looked critically at the site, what things would
you have included or deleted if you were building the same site? |
| Why would you have left certain things out? |
| Why would you have put other things in? |
| What you would have done may give you insight into why the author
did certain things. |
| When reading information, constantly question the material. Are
there questions that should obviously have been answered and aren’t? If so, why? |
| Test informal hypotheses against the information given. Use as
many competing hypotheses as you can. |
| Talk things out either with yourself or a friend. Sometimes
challenging information verbally can bring fresh perspective. |
| Be argumentative … be a skeptic! |
Investigate the source(s) given
on the web site.
| Does the document include a bibliography? |
| Were any citations given for statistics, quotes, or other
information? |
| How many sources were given? |
| Can sources and citations be verified? |
| Were examples given and documented? |
| How accurate and objective are the sources themselves? One site
that supports the lifting of all gun control attributes all of its quotes, facts, and
statistics to one book … the author of which no one has ever heard. It then offers to
sell you the book for a hefty price. The premises of the site may well all be true. The
material must be considered invalid, however, because you have absolutely no way of
knowing whether it is accurate. |
| If the information is controversial, does the author acknowledge
that? |
| Even the best sources can be wrong! |
| If you feel inundated with information, take time out. Come back
to the site later with a new perspective. |
Contrast the information to real
life experiences and general knowledge.
| The best way to be a good evaluator is to arm yourself with
information on the subject you are researching. The more you learn, the better you’ll
learn. Become an expert. |
| Talk to experts and get their input on information you have
discovered … especially information with which you yourself feel uncomfortable. |
| I am not saying that ‘everyone knows’ is proof of the
accuracy of any piece of information. However, if the information flies in the face of
what most thinking people believe to be true, you need to question its plausibility. |
| Anecdotes and investigations that focus on a single factor and
ignore conflicting factors are of little or no use. |
Authors of web sites should
always be determined if possible.
| Does the author have credentials/qualifications? |
| Is the author connected to an institution or organization that is
recognizable/reputable? |
| If the page is copyrighted, the holder of the copyright may tell
you who is responsible for the page. |
| Is there contact information for the author or the sponsoring
organization? |
| The author/owner of many pages on the Internet can be found at a
wonderful site called ‘Whois.’ The site moves from time to time but can
currently be found at http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois.
|
| If you cannot find the author, the page is not necessarily
untrustworthy. Sometimes authorship can get lost in the way pages are linked or found.
Sometimes it can be found in strange places. |
| If you can’t find an author, ask the Webmaster for the source
of the information. The Webmaster’s email address is usually near the bottom of the
home page of the site. |
Links to other
sites can be revealing.
| Are links to other sites provided? |
| How complete and accurate are the links provided? |
| Are the links relevant and appropriate? |
| Do the links provide a variety of information or are they biased
toward one point of view? |
| Are the links evaluated in any way? |
| I recently visited a site that appeared to be an objective
critique of a presidential candidate. It offered as ‘its sad duty’ some negative
information about that candidate along with some positive (and already well-known)
information. The author had done an excellent job of hiding bias until the links to other
web sites were visited. All of them were very negative sites about the candidate. The
information on the original site was suspect. |
Always use a checklist when conducting research on line. Use mine
… use someone else’s … develop your own. Researching on-line provides huge
amounts of material. It is easy to get caught up in the quantity and lose sight of the
quality. Using a checklists reminds you that you are looking for knowledge … not
information.
|
