Evaluating Internet Research Sources - The Diigo Meta page

• 20 Nov 20
  

  ajohnson8107
• 22 Mar 19
  

  amy21458

  Information_Literacy

• 26 Nov 18
  

  sw180719

  library research

• 01 Aug 17
  

  davidsonteach
  • there is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value
  • large variety of kinds (facts, opinions, stories, interpretations, statistics) and is created for many purposes (to inform, to persuade, to sell, to present a viewpoint, and to create or change an attitude or belief)
  • For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality and reliability
  • misinformation
  • information warfare ammunition: disinformation (dishonest people knowingly spreading false information), half truths, distortions, urban legends, fallacies, exaggerations, and plain old lies.
  • Pre-evaluation
  • to locate fair, objective material, you must be fair and objective
  • A major error that too many researchers make is to look only for sources whose ideas, findings, or arguments they already agree with.
  • Try to select sources that offer as much of the following information as possible: 
     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 (listed below)
  • Reliable Information is Power
  • no single perfect indicator of reliability, truthfulness, or value
  • you must make an inference from a collection of clues or indicators, based on the use you plan to make of your source.
  • CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support)

  • The CARS Checklist for Information Quality
  • Credibility
  • What about this source makes it believable (or not)? How does this source know this information? Why should I believe this source over another?
  • Author's Credentials
  • Evidence of Quality Control
  • peer review process
  • Good looks are not evidence of credibility.
  • Metainformation is information about information.
  • Summary metainformation includes all the shortened forms of information, such as abstracts, content summaries, or even tables of contents.
  • Evaluative metainformation includes all the types that provide some judgment or analysis of content.
  • two types can be combined, resulting in the best form of metainformation
  • Indicators of Lack of Credibility
  • assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive.
  • Accuracy
  • Timeliness
  • when the information you find was created, and then decide whether it is still of value
  • Comprehensiveness
  • intentions of completeness and accuracy.
  • rely on more than one source
  • Audience and Purpose
  • bias must be taken into consideration
  • Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy

  33 more annotations...

• 25 Jul 17
  

  bgbrossmann

  CARS

  • "The central work of life is interpretation." --Proverb
  • Adopting a Skeptical Attitude
  • Source Evaluation is an Art
  • Credibility
  • Accuracy
  • Reasonableness
  • Support

  5 more annotations...

• 11 Jul 17
  

  Emily Allbon

  information literacy evaluation

• 

  kvlach0000

  evaluating internet research sources

  • here is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value.
  • evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs
  • no one has to approve the content before it is made public
  • information exists on many levels of quality and reliability
  • very good to very bad
  • information warfare, the use of information as a weapon.
  • skeptical attitude
  • disinformation (dishonest people knowingly spreading false information), half truths, distortions, urban legends, fallacies, exaggerations, and plain old lies
  • Pre-evaluation
  • ask yourself what exactly you are looking for
  • purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else?
  • screen sources
  • Select Sources Likely to be Reliable
  • "What source or what kind of source would be the most credible for providing information in this particular case?" Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing quality control?
  • identify suspicious or questionable sources more readily.
  • you must be fair and objective, too
  • open to opposing ideas

  • Source Selection Tip: 
     Try to select sources that offer as much of the following information as possible: 
     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 (listed below) 
  • Reliable Information is Power
  • Information serves as the basis for beliefs, decisions, choices, and understanding our world
  • Source Evaluation is an Art
  • there is no single perfect indicator of reliability, truthfulness, or value.
  • must make an inference from a collection of clues or indicators, based on the use you plan to make of your source
  • Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support
  • The CARS Checklist
  • evidence of authenticity and reliability--or credibility, believability--has always been important.
  • What about this source makes it believable (or not)? How does this source know this information? Why should I believe this source over another?
  • several tests
  • evidence of being knowledgeable, reliable, and truthful
  • Author's Credentials
  • education, training, and/or experience
  • contact information
  • authorship
  • reputation
  • position
  • Evidence of Quality Control
  • peer review process
  • quality control of Internet material
  • organizational web sites
  • (peer review)
  • books or journals that have a quality control process
  • Metainformation
  • information about information
  • two basic types, summary and evaluative
  • shortened forms of information
  • Summary metainformation
  • quick glance
  • allows us to consider many different sources
  • judgment or analysis of content
  • Evaluative metainformation
  • recommendations, ratings, reviews, and commentaries
  • two types can be combined, resulting in the best form of metainformation
  • Indicators of Lack of Credibility
  • tone, style, or competence of the writing
  • • Anonymity 
     
    • Lack of Quality Control 
     
    • Negative Metainformation
  • Bad grammar or misspelled words
  • Emotional earnestness accompanied by exaggeration or absolutes
  • or claims of such dramatic implications that you should expect widespread discussion
  • Claims of unique, secret information
  • to assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive
  • Timeliness
  • limited useful life because of advances in the discipline
  • timeless,
  • note when the information you find was created, and then decide whether it is still of value
  • some work is outdated very quickly
  • technology, science, medicine, business, and other fields always in flux
  • check and re-check our data
  • always need to update our facts
  • If you see today's date on a page other than from a news site, be extra careful.
  • reflect the intentions of completeness and accuracy
  • Comprehensiveness
  • For whom is this source intended and for what purpose?
  • Audience and Purpose
  • Information pretending to objectivity but possessing a hidden agenda of persuasion or a hidden bias is among the most common kind of information in our culture.
  • intended audience and purpose of the article are appropriate to your requirements or at least clearly in evidence so that you may take them into account.
  • Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy
  • • No date on the document 
     
    • Vague or sweeping generalizations 
     
    • Old date on information known to change rapidly
     
    • Very one sided view that does not acknowledge opposing views or respond to them 
  • examining the information for fairness, objectivity, moderateness, and consistency
  • Fairness
  • offering a balanced, reasoned argument, not selected or slanted
  • possess a calm, reasoned tone, arguing or presenting material thoughtfully and without attempting to get you emotionally worked up.
  • some organizations are naturally not neutral
  • Objectivity
  • a good writer should be able to control his or her biases
  • conflict of interest
  • est of the information against how the world really is
  • knowledge and experience to ask if the information is really likely, possible, or probable.
  • Moderateness
  • do a reality check.
  • Consistency
  • requires that the argument or information does not contradict itself
  • World View
  • view of the world (political, economic, religious--including anti-religious--and philosophical) often influences his or her writing profoundly
  • evaluative test because some world views in some people cause quite a distortion in their view of reality or their world view permits them to fabricate evidence or falsify the positions of others
  • put themselves in the way of the argument
  • Indicators of a Lack of Reasonableness
  • Intemperate tone or language
  • Overclaims
  • Sweeping statements of excessive significance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • concerned with the source and corroboration of the information
  • Where did this information come from? What sources did the information creator use? Are the sources listed? Is there a bibliography or other documentation? Does the author provide contact information in case you wish to discuss an issue or request further clarification? What kind of support for the information is given? How does the writer know this?
  • Source Documentation or Bibliography
  • Corroboration
  • confirmability is an important test of truth
  • other sources support this source
  • good idea to triangulate your findings: that is, find at least three sources that agree
  • using information to test information
  • especially important when you find dramatic or surprising information
  • External Consistency
  • compares what is familiar in the new source with what is familiar in other sources
  • lack of supporting evidence provides the best indication
  • Indicators of a Lack of Support
  • Numbers or statistics presented without an identified source for them
  • Absence of source documentation
  • lack of corroboration
  •                        

    Credibility	trustworthy source, author’s credentials, evidence of quality control, known or respected authority, organizational support. Goal: an authoritative source, a source that supplies some good evidence that allows you to trust it.
    Accuracy	up to date, factual, detailed, exact, comprehensive, audience and purpose reflect intentions of completeness and accuracy. Goal: a source that is correct today (not yesterday), a source that gives the whole truth.
    Reasonableness	fair, balanced, objective, reasoned, no conflict of interest, absence of fallacies or slanted tone. Goal: a source that engages the subject thoughtfully and reasonably, concerned with the truth.
    Support	listed sources, contact information, available corroboration, claims supported, documentation supplied. Goal: a source that provides convincing evidence for the claims made, a source you can triangulate (find at least two other sources that support it).
  • Café (Challenge, Adapt, File, Evaluate)
  • Challenge
  • information and demand accountability
  • your skepticism and requirements for quality to fit the importance of the information and what is being claimed
  • Adapt
  • new information in your mind rather than immediately believing or disbelieving it
  • File

       
  • Evaluate
  • and re-evaluate regularly.

  124 more annotations...

• 24 Mar 17
  

  mpratt16
• 22 Mar 17
  

  lwidenor

  guide evaluation

• 15 Mar 17
  

  J Rich

  information_literacy evaluating

• 11 Mar 17
  

  doctoro

  research

• 10 Jan 17
  

  Katie Dailey

  fake_news growth_assessment_idea website_evaluation informationliteracy

• 30 Oct 16
  

  aruffin-justis

  web annotation

• 17 Oct 16
  

  stevestoneky

  infolit

• 12 Aug 16
  

  jkcross

  research evaluation website_evaluation critical evaluating

• 23 Jul 16
  

  rebeccatobler2

  Harris, R. (2015). Evaluating Internet research sources. Virtual Salt. Retrieved June, 2016.

  research website_evaluation information_literacy

  • Think about the magazine section in your local grocery store. If you reach out with your eyes closed and grab the first magazine you touch, you are about as likely to get a supermarket tabloid as you are a respected journal (actually more likely, since many respected journals don't fare well in grocery stores). Now imagine that your grocer is so accommodating that he lets anyone in town print up a magazine and put it in the magazine section. Now if you reach out blindly, you might get the Elvis Lives with Aliens Gazette just as easily as Atlantic Monthly or Time. 

    Welcome to the Internet.
  • Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for. Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone's), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions? Is the purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else?
  • "What source or what kind of source would be the most credible for providing information in this particular case?" Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing quality control? It is important to keep these considerations in mind, so that you will not simply take the opinion of the first source or two you can locate.
  • Source Selection Tip: 
     Try to select sources that offer as much of the following information as possible: 
     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 (listed below)
  • Indicators of Lack of Credibility
        You can sometimes tell by the tone, style, or competence of the writing whether or not the information is suspect. Here are a few clues:  
     
    • Anonymity 
     
    • Lack of Quality Control 
     
    • Negative Metainformation. If all the reviews are critical, be careful.
     
    • Bad grammar or misspelled words. Most educated people use grammar fairly well and check their work for spelling errors. An occasional split infinitive or comma in the wrong place is not unusual, but more than two or three spelling or grammar errors is cause for caution, at least. Whether the errors come from carelessness or ignorance, neither puts the information or the writer in a favorable light.
       
     
    • Emotional earnestness accompanied by exaggeration or absolutes. Even in very controversial areas (gun control, global warming, abortion, capital punishment) and promotional contexts (product claims and evaluations) we expect reasons, data, and emotional restraint. Articles where the writer's feelings have clearly taken over from thinking make us wonder if we are reading ideology instead of information and arguments that might persuade us. Breathless, sweeping generalizations should set off your baloney detector. For example, "Did you know that none of the vitamins and supplements sold in stores work correctly with your body chemistry? Only SuperDuperVite has been formulated to blah blah blah."
     
    • Claims of unique, secret information (which is now on the Web site) or claims of such dramatic implications that you should expect widespread discussion. For example, "The CIA was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy." Conspiracy theories in general, because they run counter to official reports and often counter to reason, should be met with great caution.
  • Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy
        In addition to an obvious tone or style that reveals a carelessness with detail or accuracy, there are several indicators that may mean the source is inaccurate, either in whole or in part: 
     
    • No date on the document 
     
    • Vague or sweeping generalizations 
     
    • Old date on information known to change rapidly
     
    • Very one sided view that does not acknowledge opposing views or respond to them 
  • ndicators of a Lack of Reasonableness
        Writers who put themselves in the way of the argument, either emotionally or because of self interest, often reveal their lack of reasonableness. If, for example, you find a writer reviewing a book he opposes by asserting that "the entire book is completely worthless claptrap," you might suspect there is more than a reasoned disagreement at work. Here are some clues to a lack of reasonableness: 
     
    • Intemperate tone or language ("stupid jerks," "shrill cries of my extremist opponents") 
     
    • 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 ("Welcome to the Old Stogie Tobacco Company Home Page. To read our report, 'Cigarettes Make You Live Longer,' click here." or "The products our competitors make are dangerous and bad for your health.")
  • Indicators of a Lack of Support
        As you can readily guess, the lack of supporting evidence provides the best indication that there is indeed no available support. Be careful, then, when a source shows problems like these: 
     
    • 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 (lack of corroboration)

  7 more annotations...

• 13 Jul 16
  

  Jevon Swanson

  research digital literacy evaluating sources digitalcitizenship

• 12 Jul 16
  

  jchitch

  #education #research #source #evaluation #social studies

• 24 Apr 16
  

  Patrick Sawyer
• 18 Mar 16
  

  Courtney Eckert

  • Getting Started: Screening Information

                 

    Pre-evaluation

    The first stage of evaluating your sources takes place before you do any searching. Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for. Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone's), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions? Is the purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else? Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal. If, for example, you are writing a research paper, and if you are looking for both facts and well-argued opinions to support or challenge a position, you will know which sources can be quickly passed by and which deserve a second look, simply by asking whether each source appears to offer facts and well-argued opinions, or just unsupported claims.

    Select Sources Likely to be Reliable

    Becoming proficient at selecting sources will require experience, of course, but even a beginning researcher can take a few minutes to ask, "What source or what kind of source would be the most credible for providing information in this particular case?" Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing quality control? It is important to keep these considerations in mind, so that you will not simply take the opinion of the first source or two you can locate. By thinking about these issues while searching, you will be able to identify suspicious or questionable sources more readily. With so many sources to choose from in a typical search, there is no reason to settle for unreliable material.
• 15 Mar 16
  

  Krystal Bulthuis

  credible website_evaluation

• 02 Mar 16
  

  Michael E Skyer A Teacher's Teacher, A Bookmark Library: From '21st Century Education' to the 'Zone of Proximal Deve

  research_method

• 04 Dec 15
  

  Robin Shine

  research evaluation website_evaluation informationliteracy evaluating

• 28 Oct 15
  

  DORA DAVIS
• 20 Oct 15
  

  lauragrosser

  research evaluation website_evaluation

• 20 Sep 15
  

  jason glampe

  multiple resources on evaluating websites and resources

  cars evaluating internet method informationliteracy reference information research

• 18 Jul 15
  

  vanessakburg01
• 06 Jul 15
  

  Jane Mitchinson

  evaluating web resources

• 07 Jun 15
  

  airsinstitute
• 29 Mar 15
  

  jfahie
  • The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use
  • Author's Credentials
        The author or source of the information should show some evidence of being knowledgeable, reliable, and truthful. Here are some clues:  
     
    • Author's education, training, and/or experience in a field relevant to the information. Look for biographical information, the author's title or position of employment 
     
    • Author provides contact information (email or snail mail address, phone number) 
     
    • Organizational authorship from a known and respected organization (corporate, governmental, or non-profit) 
     
    • Author's reputation or standing among peers. 
     
    • Author's position (job function, title)
  • Evidence of Quality Control
        Most scholarly journal articles pass through a peer review process, whereby several readers must examine and approve content before it is published. Statements issued in the name of an organization have almost always been seen and approved by several people. (But note the difference between, "Allan Thornton, employee of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, says that a new ice age is near," and "The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency said today that a new ice age is near." The employee is speaking for himself, whereas a statement in the name of NOAA represents the official position of NOAA.)  

    Evidence of quality control of Internet material includes these items: 

     
     
    • 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
       
     
     Note: Appearances can be deceiving. Don't assume that a great-looking Web site is automatically credible. Very professional and sophisticated Web page templates are available for a few dollars, so that anyone and his pet skunk can put up a site that looks expensive and authoritative. Good looks are not evidence of credibility.
  • Metainformation

         

     

     Metainformation is information about information. Information workers (sometimes called knowledge workers) all over the world are constantly poring over, processing, and evaluating information--and making notes. As the challenges produced by the increasing quantity of information continue, access to high quality metainformation will become increasingly important. Metainformation can take many forms, but there are two basic types, summary and evaluative.  

    Summary metainformation includes all the shortened forms of information, such as abstracts, content summaries, or even tables of contents. This type of metainformation gives us a quick glance at what a work is about and allows us to consider many different sources without having to go through them completely. 

     

    Evaluative metainformation includes all the types that provide some judgment or analysis of content. This type includes recommendations, ratings, reviews, and commentaries. Even the search results order of pages from a search engine like Google represents a type of evaluative metainformation, since pages are ranked in part by the number of other pages linked to them (and hence "voting" for them in some sense).

     

    And, of course, these two types can be combined, resulting in the best form of metainformation, providing us with a quick overview and some evaluation of the value. An examples would be a World Wide Web yellow pages or directory which describes each selected site and provides evaluations of its content. 
  • Indicators of Lack of Credibility
        You can sometimes tell by the tone, style, or competence of the writing whether or not the information is suspect. Here are a few clues:  
     
    • Anonymity 
     
    • Lack of Quality Control 
     
    • Negative Metainformation. If all the reviews are critical, be careful.
     
    • Bad grammar or misspelled words. Most educated people use grammar fairly well and check their work for spelling errors. An occasional split infinitive or comma in the wrong place is not unusual, but more than two or three spelling or grammar errors is cause for caution, at least. Whether the errors come from carelessness or ignorance, neither puts the information or the writer in a favorable light.
       
     
    • Emotional earnestness accompanied by exaggeration or absolutes. Even in very controversial areas (gun control, global warming, abortion, capital punishment) and promotional contexts (product claims and evaluations) we expect reasons, data, and emotional restraint. Articles where the writer's feelings have clearly taken over from thinking make us wonder if we are reading ideology instead of information and arguments that might persuade us. Breathless, sweeping generalizations should set off your baloney detector. For example, "Did you know that none of the vitamins and supplements sold in stores work correctly with your body chemistry? Only SuperDuperVite has been formulated to blah blah blah."
     
    • Claims of unique, secret information (which is now on the Web site) or claims of such dramatic implications that you should expect widespread discussion. For example, "The CIA was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy." Conspiracy theories in general, because they run counter to official reports and often counter to reason, should be met with great caution.
  • Accuracy

        The goal of the accuracy test is to assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive. For example, even though a very credible writer said something that was correct twenty years ago, it may not be correct today. Similarly, a reputable source might be giving up-to-date information, but the information may be only partial, and not give the full story. Here are some concepts related to accuracy:     

    Timeliness

        Some work is timeless, like the classic novels and stories, or like the thought provoking philosophical work of Aristotle and Plato. Other work has a limited useful life because of advances in the discipline (psychological theory, for example), and some work is outdated very quickly (such as technology news). You must therefore be careful to note when the information you find was created, and then decide whether it is still of value (and how much value). You may need information within the past ten years, five years, or even two weeks. But old is not necessarily bad: nineteenth-century American history books or literary anthologies can be highly educational because they can function as comparisons with what is being written or anthologized now. In many cases, though, you want accurate, up-to-date information.  

    An important idea connected with timeliness is the dynamic, fluid nature of information and the fact that constant change means constant changes in timeliness. The facts we learn today may be timely now, but tomorrow will not be. Especially in technology, science, medicine, business, and other fields always in flux, we must remember to check and re-check our data from time to time, and realize that we will always need to update our facts.

     

    Note: Many Web pages display today's date automatically, regardless of when the content on the page was created. If you see today's date on a page other than from a news site, be extra careful.
  • Comprehensiveness

        Any source that presents conclusions or that claims (explicitly or implicitly) to give a full and rounded story, should reflect the intentions of completeness and accuracy. In other words, the information should be comprehensive. Some writers argue that researchers should be sure that they have "complete" information before making a decision or that information must be complete. But with the advent of the information age, such a goal is impossible, if by "complete" we mean all possible information. No one can read 20,000 articles on the same subject before coming to a conclusion or making a decision. And no single piece of information will offer the truly complete story--that's why we rely on more than one source. On the other hand, an information source that deliberately leaves out important facts, qualifications, consequences, or alternatives may be misleading or even intentionally deceptive.
  • Audience and Purpose

        For whom is this source intended and for what purpose? If, for example, you find an article, "How Plants Grow," and children are the intended audience, then the material may be too simplified for your college botany paper. More important to the evaluation of information is the purpose for which the information was created. For example, an article titled, "Should You Buy or Lease a Car?" might have been written with the purpose of being an objective analysis, but it may instead have been written with the intention of persuading you that leasing a car is better than buying. In the latter case, the information will most likely be biased or distorted. Such information is not useless, but the bias must be taken into consideration when interpreting and using the information. (In some cases, you may need to find the truth by using only biased sources, some biased in one direction and some biased in the other.) Be sure, then, that the intended audience and purpose of the article are appropriate to your requirements or at least clearly in evidence so that you may take them into account. Information pretending to objectivity but possessing a hidden agenda of persuasion or a hidden bias is among the most common kind of information in our culture.
  • Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy
        In addition to an obvious tone or style that reveals a carelessness with detail or accuracy, there are several indicators that may mean the source is inaccurate, either in whole or in part: 
     
    • No date on the document 
     
    • Vague or sweeping generalizations 
     
    • Old date on information known to change rapidly
     
    • Very one sided view that does not acknowledge opposing views or respond to them 
  • Reasonableness

        The test of reasonableness involves examining the information for fairness, objectivity, moderateness, and consistency.     

    Fairness

        Fairness includes offering a balanced, reasoned argument, not selected or slanted. Even ideas or claims made by the source's opponents should be presented in an accurate manner. Pretending that the opponent has wild, irrational ideas or arguments no one could accept is to commit the straw man fallacy. A good information source will also possess a calm, reasoned tone, arguing or presenting material thoughtfully and without attempting to get you emotionally worked up. Pay attention to the tone and be cautious of highly emotional writing. Angry, hateful, critical, spiteful tones often betray an irrational and unfair attack underway rather than a reasoned argument. And writing that attempts to inflame your feelings to prevent you from thinking clearly is also unfair and manipulative.
  • Objectivity

        There is no such thing as pure objectivity, but a good writer should be able to control his or her biases. Be aware that some organizations are naturally not neutral. For example, a professional anti-business group will find, say, that some company or industry is overcharging for widgets. The industry trade association, on the other hand, can be expected to find that no such overcharging is taking place. Be on the lookout for slanted, biased, politically distorted work.  

    One of the biggest hindrances to objectivity is conflict of interest. Sometimes an information source will benefit in some way (usually financially, but sometimes politically or even emotionally or psychologically) if that source can get you to accept certain information rather than the pure and objective truth. For example, many sites that sell "natural" products (cosmetics, vitamins, clothes) often criticize their competitors for selling bad, unhealthy or dangerous products. The criticism may be just, but because the messenger will gain financially if you believe the message, you should be very careful--and check somewhere else before spending money or believing the tale.
  • Moderateness

        Moderateness is a test of the information against how the world really is. Use your knowledge and experience to ask if the information is really likely, possible, or probable. Most truths are ordinary. If a claim being made is surprising or hard to believe, use caution and demand more evidence than you might require for a lesser claim. Claims that seem to run against established natural laws also require more evidence. In other words, do a reality check. Is the information believable? Does it make sense? Or do the claims lack face validity? That is, do they seem to conflict with what you already know in your experience, or do they seem too exaggerated to be true? "Half of all Americans have had their cars stolen." Does that pass the face validity test? Have half of your friends had their cars stolen? Is the subject on the news regularly (as we might assume it would be if such a level of theft were the case)?  

    It is important, of course, to remember that some truths are spectacular and immoderate. Over the past few decades, Michel Lotito, a French performer with the stage name of Monsieur Mangetout (French for "eats everything") has actually eaten 18 bicycles, several TV sets, a few shopping carts, and a small airplane by first having them ground into a fine powder and sprinkling a few teaspoonfuls on his breakfast cereal each morning. So do not automatically reject a claim or source simply because it is astonishing. Just be extra careful about checking it out.
  • Consistency

        The consistency test simply requires that the argument or information does not contradict itself. Sometimes when people spin falsehoods or distort the truth, inconsistencies or even contradictions show up. These are evidence of unreasonableness.     

    World View

        A writer's view of the world (political, economic, religious--including anti-religious--and philosophical) often influences his or her writing profoundly, from the subjects chosen to the slant, the issues raised, issues ignored, fairness to opponents, kinds of examples, and so forth. World view can be an evaluative test because some world views in some people cause quite a distortion in their view of reality or their world view permits them to fabricate evidence or falsify the positions of others. For some writers, political ideology or political agenda takes precedence over truth and sometimes even over fairness. If you are looking for truth or a whole picture, such sources are not the best.
  • Indicators of a Lack of Reasonableness
        Writers who put themselves in the way of the argument, either emotionally or because of self interest, often reveal their lack of reasonableness. If, for example, you find a writer reviewing a book he opposes by asserting that "the entire book is completely worthless claptrap," you might suspect there is more than a reasoned disagreement at work. Here are some clues to a lack of reasonableness: 
     
    • Intemperate tone or language ("stupid jerks," "shrill cries of my extremist opponents") 
     
    • 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 ("Welcome to the Old Stogie Tobacco Company Home Page. To read our report, 'Cigarettes Make You Live Longer,' click here." or "The products our competitors make are dangerous and bad for your health.")
  • Support

        The area of support is concerned with the source and corroboration of the information. Much information, especially statistics and claims of fact, comes from other sources. Citing sources strengthens the credibility of the information. (Remember this when you write a research paper.)     

    Source Documentation or Bibliography

        Where did this information come from? What sources did the information creator use? Are the sources listed? Is there a bibliography or other documentation? Does the author provide contact information in case you wish to discuss an issue or request further clarification? What kind of support for the information is given? How does the writer know this? It is especially important for statistics to be documented. Otherwise, someone may be just making up numbers. Note that some information from corporate sites consists of descriptions of products, techniques, technologies, or processes with which the corporation is involved. If you are careful to distinguish between facts ("We mix X and Y together to get Z") and advertising ("This protocol is the best in the industry"), then such descriptions should be reliable. 
  • Corroboration

        See if other sources support this source. Corroboration or confirmability is an important test of truth. And even in areas of judgment or opinion, if an argument is sound, there will probably be a number of people who adhere to it or who are in some general agreement with parts of it. Whether you're looking for a fact (like the lyrics to a song or the date of an event), an opinion (like whether paper or plastic is the more environmentally friendly choice), or some advice (like how to grow bromeliads), it is a good idea to triangulate your findings: that is, find at least three sources that agree. If the sources do not agree, do further research to find out the range of opinion or disagreement before you draw your conclusions. 

    What you are doing with corroboration, then, is using information to test information. Use one source, fact, point of view, or interpretation to test another. Find other information to support and reconfirm (or to challenge or rebut) information you have found.

  • Corroboration is especially important when you find dramatic or surprising information (information failing the moderateness test, above). For example, the claim that a commonly used food additive is harmful should be viewed with skepticism until it can be confirmed (or rebutted) by further research. The claim may be true, but it seems unlikely that both government and consumer organizations would let the additive go unchallenged if indeed it were harmful.

           

    External Consistency

        While the test of corroboration involves finding out whether other sources contain the same new information as the source being evaluated, the test of external consistency compares what is familiar in the new source with what is familiar in other sources. That is, information is usually a mixture of old and new, some things you already know and some things you do not. The test of external consistency asks, Where this source discusses facts or ideas I already know something about, does the source agree or harmonize or does it conflict, exaggerate, or distort? The reasoning is that if a source is faulty where it discusses something you already know, it is likely to be faulty in areas where you do not yet know, and you should therefore be cautious and skeptical about trusting it.     

    Indicators of a Lack of Support

        As you can readily guess, the lack of supporting evidence provides the best indication that there is indeed no available support. Be careful, then, when a source shows problems like these:
  • • 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 (lack of corroboration)

  17 more annotations...

• 28 Mar 15
  

  kristenfischer

  website_evaluation informationliteracy

• 15 Mar 15
  

  Maria Pallarés

  internet avaluació web English

• 23 Feb 15
  

  cjduff

  Robert Harris's "CARS" checklist (mentioned in the Invisible Web chapter) explains how to evaluate information sources based on Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, and Support. It's a very plain web page, but it gives some good advice on separating good information from junk information.

• 20 Feb 15
  

  cguwriting

  evaluation research reference information website information literacy source internet

• 10 Feb 15
  

  Allison Burrell

  evaluating reference information website research evaluation website_evaluation informationliteracy

• 26 Jan 15
  

  Mindi Slone
  • If you reach out with your eyes closed and grab the first magazine you touch, you are about as likely to get a supermarket tabloid as you are a respected journal (actually more likely, since many respected journals don't fare well in grocery stores). Now imagine that your grocer is so accommodating that he lets anyone in town print up a magazine and put it in the magazine section.
  • This information exists in a large variety of kinds (facts, opinions, stories, interpretations, statistics) and is created for many purposes (to inform, to persuade, to sell, to present a viewpoint, and to create or change an attitude or belief). For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality and reliability
  • You don't have to believe everything you read, hear, or see. (Nor do you have to become completely cynical and disbelieve everything.) Just be very cautious
  • Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for. Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone's), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions? Is the purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else? Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal.
  • "What source or what kind of source would be the most credible for providing information in this particular case?
  • Instead, you must make an inference from a collection of clues or indicators, based on the use you plan to make of your source.
  • The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use
  • Credibility
  • The author or source of the information should show some evidence of being knowledgeable, reliable, and truthful. Here are some clues:  
     
    • Author's education, training, and/or experience in a field relevant to the information. Look for biographical information, the author's title or position of employment 
     
    • Author provides contact information (email or snail mail address, phone number) 
     
    • Organizational authorship from a known and respected organization (corporate, governmental, or non-profit) 
     
    • Author's reputation or standing among peers. 
     
    • Author's position (job function, title)
  • Statements issued in the name of an organization have almost always been seen and approved by several people.
  • Don't assume that a great-looking Web site is automatically credible.
  • The goal of the accuracy test is to assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive. For example, even though a very credible writer said something that was correct twenty years ago, it may not be correct today

  10 more annotations...

• 29 Dec 14
  

  Tracy Watanabe

  validity credibility research

• 12 Dec 14
  

  Leslie Healey

  research

• 11 Nov 14
  

  consuelo sarauz
• 08 Nov 14
  

  Dvora Marina Brodsky

  evaluating research evaluation information_literacy

• 17 Oct 14
  

  cbjohnsrud

  EvaluatingWebsites evaluation websiteevaluation

• 11 Oct 14
  

  Laurie Villwock

  web_evaluation

• 16 Sep 14
  

  elizabeth_ap
  • nformation Exists on a Continuum of Reliability and Quality
  • Screening Information
  • Pre-evaluation
  • Fairness
  • bjectivity
  • Moderateness
  • Consisten
  • World View
  • Indicators of a Lack of Reasonableness

  7 more annotations...

• 

  abbyvansice
  • Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for
• 20 Aug 14
  

  Karen Winsper

  Evaluating Internet Research Sources http://t.co/RllhFhyGSb #edtech #edchat

  edtech edchat #favtweet

• 03 Jun 14
  

  Bill Belsey
• 27 Apr 14
  

  Adam Babcock

  informationliteracy CARS

• 17 Apr 14
  

  Carmen Torres
  • Welcome to the Internet. As I hope my analogy makes clear, there is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value.
  • It's your job as a searcher, then, to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs
  • For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality and reliability. It ranges from very good to very bad and includes every shade in between. 

  1 more annotation...

• 15 Apr 14
  

  Mihaela BZ

  research evaluating website_evaluation

• 04 Mar 14
  

  Brian Moore

  website evaluation web_evaluation education evaluation

• 02 Feb 14
  

  Lynn Waldsmith

  TECH340.79

• 01 Feb 14
  

  Theresa Banks

  evaluation

• 24 Jan 14
  

  Trent M Kays

  website evaluation teaching course readings internet

• 21 Nov 13
  

  Guillermina Viruet

  claves informacion confiable en internet

• 18 Nov 13
  

  Steve Kelly
  • "The central work of life is interpretation." --Proverb
• 12 Oct 13
  

  Christiana Brazell
• 08 Sep 13
  

  elaine ha

  research evaluation informationliteracy website_evaluation evaluating

• 27 Aug 13
  

  Harry Hoeve

  Internet Use Internet zoeken internet zoeken internet research website_evaluation informationliteracy evaluating website

• 18 Aug 13
  

  Michelle Nye
  • ummary of The CARS Checklist for Research Source Evaluation 
                              

    Credibility	trustworthy source, author’s credentials, evidence of quality control, known or respected authority, organizational support. Goal: an authoritative source, a source that supplies some good evidence that allows you to trust it.
    Accuracy	up to date, factual, detailed, exact, comprehensive, audience and purpose reflect intentions of completeness and accuracy. Goal: a source that is correct today (not yesterday), a source that gives the whole truth.
    Reasonableness	fair, balanced, objective, reasoned, no conflict of interest, absence of fallacies or slanted tone. Goal: a source that engages the subject thoughtfully and reasonably, concerned with the truth.
    Support	listed sources, contact information, available corroboration, claims supported, documentation supplied. Goal: a source that provides convincing evidence for the claims made, a source you can triangulate (find at least two other sources that support it).
• 17 Aug 13
  

  danis daniel

  content

  • Evaluating Internet Research Sources

      Robert Harris 
      Version Date: November 22, 2010
      Previous Version: June 15, 2007  

    ---

       

    ---

      

    "The central work of life is interpretation." --Proverb 

      

    Introduction: The Diversity of Information

                 

    Information is a Commodity Available in Many Flavors

    Think about the magazine section in your local grocery store. If you reach out with your eyes closed and grab the first magazine you touch, you are about as likely to get a supermarket tabloid as you are a respected journal (actually more likely, since many respected journals don't fare well in grocery stores). Now imagine that your grocer is so accommodating that he lets anyone in town print up a magazine and put it in the magazine section. Now if you reach out blindly, you might get the Elvis Lives with Aliens Gazette just as easily as Atlantic Monthly or Time.  Welcome to the Internet. As I hope my analogy makes clear, there is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value. Unlike most traditional information media (books, magazines, organizational documents), no one has to approve the content before it is made public. It's your job as a searcher, then, to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs.

    Information Exists on a Continuum of Reliability and Quality

    Inf
  • ormation is everywhere on the Internet, existing in large quantities and continuously being created and revised. This information exists in a large variety of kinds (facts, opinions, stories, interpretations, statistics) and is created for many purposes (to inform, to persuade, to sell, to present a viewpoint, and to create or change an attitude or belief). For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality and reliability. It ranges from very good to very bad and includes every shade in between. 
  • The first stage of evaluating your sources takes place before you do any searching. Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for. Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone's), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions? Is the purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else? Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal. If, for example, you are writing a research paper, and if you are looking for both facts and well-argued opinions to support or challenge a position, you will know which sources can be quickly passed by and which deserve a second look, simply by asking whether each source appears to offer facts and well-argued opinions, or just unsupported claims.

  1 more annotation...

• 11 Aug 13
  

  Karen Korras

  virtual salt

• 06 Aug 13
  

  Kristi Starr

  evaluation research education web website_evaluation internet

• 05 Aug 13
  

  Michelle Lawler

  Website selection

  website_evaluation

• 29 Jul 13
  

  Leanne Ellis

  informationliteracy website evaluation for students website_evaluation website evaluation

• 17 Jul 13
  

  Jose Torres
  • Welcome to the Internet. As I hope my analogy makes clear, there is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value.
  • It's your job as a searcher, then, to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs.
  • For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality and reliability. It ranges from very good to very bad and includes every shade in between. 
  • Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone's), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions?
  • Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal.

  3 more annotations...

• 15 Jul 13
  

  Glenda Garcia Melendez

  evaluation resources

• 11 Jul 13
  

  Kate Duron

  Educ190Resources

• 03 Jun 13
  

  Liz Bucci

  research evaluation evaluating reference informationliteracy

• 20 Apr 13
  

  Prentis Johnson

  evaluating

• 15 Apr 13
  

  lindabatty
• 08 Apr 13
  

  Lisa Stocks

  Source Research Evaluation

• 13 Mar 13
  

  Ryan Blaue
• 02 Mar 13
  

  dwarshaw

  teaching

• 13 Feb 13
  

  Tabitha Long

  tsips website evaluation

• 24 Jan 13
  

  Teresa Campbell

  discern evaluating reference evaluation website_evaluation information website research informationliteracy

• 20 Jan 13
  

  Cameron Vosburg
• 17 Dec 12
  

  Larissa F.

  reliable source

• 07 Nov 12
  

  Katie Connelly

• 16 Oct 12
  

  Maria Parker

  website_evaluation

• 13 Oct 12
  

  Alicia Rosenbaum

  research evaluation website_evaluation

• 28 Sep 12
  

  Karen Vitek

  "Evaluating Internet Research Sources"
  
  The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use. Few sources will meet every criterion in the list, and even those that do may not possess the highest level of quality possible. But if you learn to use the criteria in this list, you will be much more likely to separate the high quality information from the poor quality information.

  research evaluation website_evaluation evaluatingwebsites informationliteracy

• 27 Sep 12
  

  CARS

  website_evaluation website evaluation

  • CAFÉ Advice
  • Challenge information and demand accountability.
  • Who says so?
  • Why should I trust this source?
  • Require more credibility and evidence for stronger claims.

  3 more annotations...

• 12 Sep 12
  

  nhcclibrary

  The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use.

  digital literacy online resources

• 09 Sep 12
  

  Sofía Arellano

  Busqueda de información website_evaluation

  • Unlike most traditional information media (books, magazines, organizational documents), no one has to approve the content before it is made public.
  • It's your job as a searcher, then, to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs.
  • The first stage
  • ask yourself what exactly you are looking for
  • Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal
  • take a few minutes to ask
  • Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing quality control?
  • It is important to keep these considerations in mind, so that you will not simply take the opinion of the first source or two you can locate.
  • By thinking about these issues while searching, you will be able to identify suspicious or questionable sources more readily.

  7 more annotations...

• 06 Sep 12
  

  Sarah Bacon

  internetsafety

• 02 Sep 12
  

  Eileen Schroeder

  informationliteracy webevaluation

• 31 Aug 12
  

  Lynda McArdle

  The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use.

  research evaluation informationliteracy website_evaluation evaluating reference information website

• 16 Aug 12
  

  Michelle Donovan
• 09 Aug 12
  

  Doon Library

  websiteevaluation information_literacy

• 

  Cotham School Library

  website_evaluation

• 07 Aug 12
  

  juliec3 stx

  informationliteracy website_evaluation

• 06 Aug 12
  

  Krishna Longanecker

  evaluating website

• 01 Aug 12
  

  Catherine Graham-Smith

  evaluation website

• 30 Jul 12
  

  Nancy Prentice

  evaluating_websites

• 

  Isabel Mendinhos

  avaliação de páginas web

• 29 Jul 12
  

  MK Kreikemeier

  research evaluation information website_evaluation

• 

  mrs spadaro

  authority searching cards evaluation sources

• 

  pam oles

  library

• 

  Mandy Kirk

  research informationliteracy website_evaluation

• 

  Antonietta Neighbour

  information_literacy research

Public Stiky Notes

• 
  Graham M on 2010-02-05
  agree x2
• 
  Sally C on 2010-02-01
  agree!! :P
• 
  Liping Deng on 2010-01-29
  CARS model is a very popular model of evalating web resources.
• 
  shah00737 on 2010-04-22
  yes
  
• 
  Graham M on 2010-02-05
  awesome
• 
  Bill Fung on 2010-02-05
  Incredible
• 
  Esther S on 2010-02-05
  amazing
• 
  Sally C on 2010-02-01
  interesting
• 
  Liping Deng on 2010-01-31
  It's about information providers: whether they are qualified and trustworthy.
• 
  Coach Crowe on 2010-07-01
  Whether reading an article or listening to a speaker this seriously reduces a persons credibility for me.
• 
  Christopher Y on 2010-02-05
  Can you see me ?
• 
  Christopher Y on 2010-02-05
  hi
• 
  King L on 2010-02-01
  Lack of resonableness
• 
  King L on 2010-02-01
  Indicators
  

Page Comments

• 
  Liping Deng on 2010-01-29
  Important !!
• 
  Cindy W on 2010-02-01
  This is a very useful web page with all the criteria for evaluating the Internet pages....
• 
  Crystal H on 2010-02-01
  Diigo is new to me!
• 
  Christopher Y on 2010-02-05
  Testing
  

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.