Last week, I was instructed to view four websites and create a list of criteria for my students to us to determine whether or not a web site is credible. I got caught up in reading the text that this was put on hold. Actually, I think I was avoiding this because I had no idea how to tackle this assignment. I spend so little time online and I do not use electronic sources when searching for information. Since I have seen so few, I really have NO idea how to determine the credibility of a web site.
Feeling awful about not completing the assignment and knowing that we were due to discuss it that very day, I attempted it during the hour break between lecture and lab. I was not sure what to expect when I visited http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/. My first reaction was an audible laugh. The picture of the tree octopus on the homepage was hilarious. I suppose that gave me my first criteria, common sense. After just looking at the page something within me told me that it was not a credible site. Then as I began to read, it became very clear how absurd the site was. I would tell students to apply a little common sense to what you view online. Just because it is on the Internet it does not mean that it is true or right.
The site about martin Luther King, Jr. at http://martinlutherking.org/ at first glance did not seem so absurd. It did not appear to be an untrustworthy site until I began clicking the articles and reading. I read so-called information about this man, which I had never heard before. I scrolled to the bottom of the page to see who created the page. I became very uneasy as a white supremacist website opened. I felt as if I had gotten there by mistake and was also quite surprised that the school’s computers allowed the site to open. I quickly closed it feeling as if I had done something very wrong and would get in trouble. I clicked at the bottom of the page and the same site opened. I closed the site to ponder what had happened. I decided that comparing the information on one site with the information in other media to corroborate it would be a good test of credibility. If similar information can be found in books, magazines or newspapers, then the information would most likely be genuine. This line of thinking was also applied while viewing http://www.allaboutexplorers.com/index.html.
When I opened the last site, again I laughed out loud. Not because of the appearance of the site but because of the subject. I had heard of the problems of Dihydrogen Monoxide some years previous. I can’t remember if it was Rush Limbaugh or Penn & Teller who took this cause all the way to capital hill. Petitions to get this “invisible killer” out of our schools were presented to numerous senators and congressmen. When told of the number of fatalities caused by DHMO almost all signed immediately to have it banned. I have a vague recollection that somebody actually stood on the senate floor and spoke about this. As I said, this was a number of years ago, and I would have to go back through my newspaper clippings to get the details correct. Anyway, I personally never saw a problem with Dihydrogen Monoxide better known as WATER (di- hydrogen meaning 2 hydrogen and mono- meaning one oxygen – H2O). As far as the credibility of the site, I would say that you need to be able to find the information on a site in some other widely trusted electronic media such as a radio program or tv program.
As I said, I had not finished before it was discussed in lab. It was suggested during our review that the same information should be found on at least 3 other sites. This does not make the process foolproof, but it can eliminate a lot of garbage. I was glad to know that I wasn’t too far off in judging the credibility of websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment