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: facts opinions stories interpretations statistics

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

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

How to evaluate Internet sources Getting started: Screening Information Select sources likely to be reliable: Do sources offer the following information? Author’s name Author’s title or position Author’s organizational affiliation Date of page creation or version Author’s contact information 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: beliefs decisions choices understanding our world

Support (not workability) 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? Author’s credentials Evidence of Quality Control Metainformation

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

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

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

The CARS Checklist Indicators of Lack of CREDIBILITY: Anonimity Lack of Quality Control Negative Metainformation 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)? TIMELINESS COMPREHENSIVENESS AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

The CARS Checklist ACCURACY Timeliness 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’!) 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 Information should be comprehensive Information should not leave out important facts Information should offer qualifications, point out consequences and alternatives as conclusions

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

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

The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS: is the information fair ? objective ? moderate ? consistent ?

The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Fairness A site should present its information in an accurate manner: possess a calm tone use a reasoned tone be cautious of highly emotional writing

The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Objectivity Be neutral as much as possible Avoid conflict of interests

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

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

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

The CARS Checklist SUPPORT: how can I support my information? Citing sources strengthens the credibility of the information. Source documentation or bibliography Corroboration External consistency

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

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

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

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