{"id":428,"date":"2021-03-30T17:47:24","date_gmt":"2021-03-30T17:47:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-englishcomp2\/?post_type=chapter&p=428"},"modified":"2022-07-25T19:31:19","modified_gmt":"2022-07-25T19:31:19","slug":"evaluating-websites","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/wm-englishcomp2\/chapter\/evaluating-websites\/","title":{"raw":"Evaluating Websites","rendered":"Evaluating Websites"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\nEvaluate websites using the SIFT method\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nAs much of our research is now done online through the internet it can sometimes be difficult to determine which source is more credible than another. In a Stanford report on evaluating digital information, they took two professional organization websites on the same topic for students, professional historians, and professional fact-checkers to evaluate which is more credible. One organization was founded decades ago by medical researchers, the other by a hate group. Only the last group, professional fact-checkers, were able to determine the medical organization as being credible, whereas the others took too long or chose incorrectly. The Stanford report shows that even professionals can have a difficult time in determining the credibility of a professionally-made and well-written website. (Wineburg and McGrew)\r\n\r\nBy doing a little more research using the four moves you can eliminate certain sources and find the best fitting ones to support your ideas on the topic:\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1728\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]\"\" The four moves: Stop, Investigate the source, find better coverage, trace the original context.[\/caption]\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Stop<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Investigate<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Find Better Coverage<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Trace Claims<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nBe mindful that when following the four moves you do not fall down the \u201crabbit hole\u201d of clicking that can deter your research and waste your time. Background on organizations, the author\u2019s qualifications, and source information should be easy to find and take only a minute.\r\n
    \r\n

    Example: Vetting an article with the four moves<\/h3>\r\nLet\u2019s say you come across a New York Times article that links sleep paralysis to alien abductions<\/a>. It comes off as an interesting yet strange topic, so what can you do to either use this source on these topics or find better ones? Follow the four moves:\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Stop<\/h2>\r\nThe first move is the simplest.\u00a0STOP<\/strong>\u00a0reminds you of two things.\r\n\r\nFirst, when you first hit a page or post and start to read it \u2014 STOP. Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is. If you don\u2019t have that information, use the other moves to get a sense of what you\u2019re looking at. Don\u2019t read it or share media until you know what it is.\r\n\r\nSecond, after you begin to use the other moves it can be easy to go down a rabbit hole, going off on tangents only distantly related to your original task. If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed in your fact-checking efforts, STOP and take a second to remember your purpose. If you just want to repost, read an interesting story, or get a high-level explanation of a concept, it\u2019s probably good enough to find out whether the publication is reputable. If you are doing deep research of your own, you may want to chase down individual claims in a newspaper article and independently verify them.\r\n\r\nPlease keep in mind that both sorts of investigations are equally useful. Quick and shallow investigations will form most of what we do on the web. We get quicker with the simple stuff in part so we can spend more time on the stuff that matters to us. But in either case, stopping periodically and reevaluating our reaction or search strategy is key.\r\n
    \r\n

    Example: 1. STOp<\/h3>\r\nIn the case of the New York Times<\/em> article about alien abductions, we'll want to STOP to think about a few things. We may know that the\u00a0New York Times <\/em>is reputable, but is this really the New York Times<\/em>? What if you had actually found an article in the\u00a0New York Time <\/em>(which doesn't really exist),\u00a0<\/em>at\u00a0newyorktime.com? Take a second to verify that you're at the correct and legitimate website.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, we also need to think about our purpose in using this article. Since we're considering this as a research topic, we'll need more sources than just the New York Times<\/em>. This is a good time to look for claims and references in the article to track down elsewhere.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Investigate<\/h2>\r\nThe idea here is that you want to know\u00a0what<\/em>\u00a0you\u2019re reading\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0you read it.\r\n\r\nNow, you don\u2019t have to do a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation into a source before you engage with it. But if you\u2019re reading a piece on economics by a Nobel prize-winning economist, you should know that before you read it. Conversely, if you\u2019re watching a video on the many benefits of milk consumption that was put out by the dairy industry, you want to know that as well.\r\n\r\nThis doesn\u2019t mean the Nobel economist will always be right and that the dairy industry can\u2019t be trusted. But knowing the expertise and agenda of the source is crucial to your interpretation of what they say. Taking sixty seconds to figure out where media is from before reading will help you decide if it is worth your time, and if it is, help you to better understand its significance and trustworthiness.\r\n
    \r\n

    Example: 2. Investigate<\/h3>\r\nIf you're not sure about the reliability of the publication, this is a good time to do some sleuthing. Wikipedia can be a good source on newspapers and magazines, since it tends to comment fairly neutrally on the perceived trustworthiness of the publication. For instance,\u00a0Wikipedia informs us that the New York\u00a0Times <\/em>\"has long been regarded within the industry as a national 'newspaper of record'\" (Wikipedia). So\u00a0we know that the\u00a0Times <\/em>is reputable, but we should check which section the article is in. Is this news coverage, or opinion? Or even humor? Who is the author? Can we find out more about them?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Find Better Coverage<\/h2>\r\nSometimes you don\u2019t care about the particular article or video that reaches you. You care about the\u00a0claim<\/em>\u00a0the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. You want to know if it represents a consensus viewpoint, or if it is the subject of much disagreement.\r\n\r\nIn this case, your best strategy may be to ignore the source that reached you, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim. If you get an article that says koalas have just been declared extinct from the Save the Koalas Foundation, your best bet might not be to investigate the source, but to go out and find the\u00a0best<\/em>\u00a0source you can on this topic, or, just as importantly, to scan multiple sources and see what the expert consensus seems to be. In these cases we encourage you to \u201cfind other coverage\u201d that better suits your needs \u2014 more trusted, more in-depth, or maybe just more varied. In lesson two we\u2019ll show you some techniques to do this sort of thing very quickly.\r\n\r\nDo you have to agree with the consensus once you find it? Absolutely not! But understanding the context and history of a claim will help you better evaluate it and form a starting point for future investigation.\r\n
    \r\n

    Example: 3. Find Better Coverage<\/h3>\r\nTo investigate sleep paralysis being linked to people thinking they are being abducted by aliens, you should find the studies and reports that the newspaper referred to. Since they did not provide the title of those reports, the library databases will likely provide an answer as to whether or not there is any research on this subject.\r\n\r\nIn EBSCO\/Academic Search Premier, a simple keyword search for \u201csleep paralysis alien abductions\u201d brings up at least two peer- reviewed articles and another two writings on the subject. The fact that there are scholarly publications on the subject shows that there is primary information out there for you to use.\r\n\r\n\"A\r\n

    <\/h2>\r\n<\/div>\r\nTrace Claims<\/span>\r\n\r\nMuch of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Maybe there\u2019s a video of a fight between two people with Person A as the aggressor. But what happened before that? What was clipped out of the video and what stayed in? Maybe there\u2019s a picture that seems real but the caption could be misleading. Maybe a claim is made about a new medical treatment based on a research finding \u2014 but you\u2019re not certain if the cited research paper really said that.\r\n\r\nIn these cases we\u2019ll have you trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in its original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.\r\n
    \r\n

    Example: 4. Trace Claims<\/h3>\r\nWith the original New York Times<\/em> article, the writer quotes a few expert opinions on this sleep paralysis phenomena. You choose to look up Kazuhiko Fukuda via internet search engine and find find they co-authored a study on the subject. While the scholarly study does not provide the direct quote the New York Times<\/em> article provides, you do have another primary source to add to your folder.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Try It<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/0fd31d68-4c69-416e-9d63-195bf0f3f88f\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n[reveal-answer q=\"862477\"]Works Cited[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"862477\"]\r\n\r\nWikipedia contributors. \"The New York Times.\"\u00a0Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia<\/i>. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 28 Aug. 2021. Web. 2 Sep. 2021.\r\n\r\nWineburg, Sam, and Sarah McGrew. \"Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information.\" (2017).\r\n\r\n[\/hidden-answer]\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"
    \n

    Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n

    Evaluate websites using the SIFT method<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    As much of our research is now done online through the internet it can sometimes be difficult to determine which source is more credible than another. In a Stanford report on evaluating digital information, they took two professional organization websites on the same topic for students, professional historians, and professional fact-checkers to evaluate which is more credible. One organization was founded decades ago by medical researchers, the other by a hate group. Only the last group, professional fact-checkers, were able to determine the medical organization as being credible, whereas the others took too long or chose incorrectly. The Stanford report shows that even professionals can have a difficult time in determining the credibility of a professionally-made and well-written website. (Wineburg and McGrew)<\/p>\n

    By doing a little more research using the four moves you can eliminate certain sources and find the best fitting ones to support your ideas on the topic:<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    The four moves: Stop, Investigate the source, find better coverage, trace the original context.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n
    1. Stop<\/li>\n
    2. Investigate<\/li>\n
    3. Find Better Coverage<\/li>\n
    4. Trace Claims<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Be mindful that when following the four moves you do not fall down the \u201crabbit hole\u201d of clicking that can deter your research and waste your time. Background on organizations, the author\u2019s qualifications, and source information should be easy to find and take only a minute.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Example: Vetting an article with the four moves<\/h3>\n

      Let\u2019s say you come across a New York Times article that links sleep paralysis to alien abductions<\/a>. It comes off as an interesting yet strange topic, so what can you do to either use this source on these topics or find better ones? Follow the four moves:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Stop<\/h2>\n

      The first move is the simplest.\u00a0STOP<\/strong>\u00a0reminds you of two things.<\/p>\n

      First, when you first hit a page or post and start to read it \u2014 STOP. Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is. If you don\u2019t have that information, use the other moves to get a sense of what you\u2019re looking at. Don\u2019t read it or share media until you know what it is.<\/p>\n

      Second, after you begin to use the other moves it can be easy to go down a rabbit hole, going off on tangents only distantly related to your original task. If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed in your fact-checking efforts, STOP and take a second to remember your purpose. If you just want to repost, read an interesting story, or get a high-level explanation of a concept, it\u2019s probably good enough to find out whether the publication is reputable. If you are doing deep research of your own, you may want to chase down individual claims in a newspaper article and independently verify them.<\/p>\n

      Please keep in mind that both sorts of investigations are equally useful. Quick and shallow investigations will form most of what we do on the web. We get quicker with the simple stuff in part so we can spend more time on the stuff that matters to us. But in either case, stopping periodically and reevaluating our reaction or search strategy is key.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Example: 1. STOp<\/h3>\n

      In the case of the New York Times<\/em> article about alien abductions, we’ll want to STOP to think about a few things. We may know that the\u00a0New York Times <\/em>is reputable, but is this really the New York Times<\/em>? What if you had actually found an article in the\u00a0New York Time <\/em>(which doesn’t really exist),\u00a0<\/em>at\u00a0newyorktime.com? Take a second to verify that you’re at the correct and legitimate website.<\/p>\n

      Meanwhile, we also need to think about our purpose in using this article. Since we’re considering this as a research topic, we’ll need more sources than just the New York Times<\/em>. This is a good time to look for claims and references in the article to track down elsewhere.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Investigate<\/h2>\n

      The idea here is that you want to know\u00a0what<\/em>\u00a0you\u2019re reading\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0you read it.<\/p>\n

      Now, you don\u2019t have to do a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation into a source before you engage with it. But if you\u2019re reading a piece on economics by a Nobel prize-winning economist, you should know that before you read it. Conversely, if you\u2019re watching a video on the many benefits of milk consumption that was put out by the dairy industry, you want to know that as well.<\/p>\n

      This doesn\u2019t mean the Nobel economist will always be right and that the dairy industry can\u2019t be trusted. But knowing the expertise and agenda of the source is crucial to your interpretation of what they say. Taking sixty seconds to figure out where media is from before reading will help you decide if it is worth your time, and if it is, help you to better understand its significance and trustworthiness.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Example: 2. Investigate<\/h3>\n

      If you’re not sure about the reliability of the publication, this is a good time to do some sleuthing. Wikipedia can be a good source on newspapers and magazines, since it tends to comment fairly neutrally on the perceived trustworthiness of the publication. For instance,\u00a0Wikipedia informs us that the New York\u00a0Times <\/em>“has long been regarded within the industry as a national ‘newspaper of record'” (Wikipedia). So\u00a0we know that the\u00a0Times <\/em>is reputable, but we should check which section the article is in. Is this news coverage, or opinion? Or even humor? Who is the author? Can we find out more about them?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      Find Better Coverage<\/h2>\n

      Sometimes you don\u2019t care about the particular article or video that reaches you. You care about the\u00a0claim<\/em>\u00a0the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. You want to know if it represents a consensus viewpoint, or if it is the subject of much disagreement.<\/p>\n

      In this case, your best strategy may be to ignore the source that reached you, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim. If you get an article that says koalas have just been declared extinct from the Save the Koalas Foundation, your best bet might not be to investigate the source, but to go out and find the\u00a0best<\/em>\u00a0source you can on this topic, or, just as importantly, to scan multiple sources and see what the expert consensus seems to be. In these cases we encourage you to \u201cfind other coverage\u201d that better suits your needs \u2014 more trusted, more in-depth, or maybe just more varied. In lesson two we\u2019ll show you some techniques to do this sort of thing very quickly.<\/p>\n

      Do you have to agree with the consensus once you find it? Absolutely not! But understanding the context and history of a claim will help you better evaluate it and form a starting point for future investigation.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Example: 3. Find Better Coverage<\/h3>\n

      To investigate sleep paralysis being linked to people thinking they are being abducted by aliens, you should find the studies and reports that the newspaper referred to. Since they did not provide the title of those reports, the library databases will likely provide an answer as to whether or not there is any research on this subject.<\/p>\n

      In EBSCO\/Academic Search Premier, a simple keyword search for \u201csleep paralysis alien abductions\u201d brings up at least two peer- reviewed articles and another two writings on the subject. The fact that there are scholarly publications on the subject shows that there is primary information out there for you to use.<\/p>\n

      \"A<\/p>\n

      <\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

      Trace Claims<\/span><\/p>\n

      Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Maybe there\u2019s a video of a fight between two people with Person A as the aggressor. But what happened before that? What was clipped out of the video and what stayed in? Maybe there\u2019s a picture that seems real but the caption could be misleading. Maybe a claim is made about a new medical treatment based on a research finding \u2014 but you\u2019re not certain if the cited research paper really said that.<\/p>\n

      In these cases we\u2019ll have you trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in its original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.<\/p>\n

      \n

      Example: 4. Trace Claims<\/h3>\n

      With the original New York Times<\/em> article, the writer quotes a few expert opinions on this sleep paralysis phenomena. You choose to look up Kazuhiko Fukuda via internet search engine and find find they co-authored a study on the subject. While the scholarly study does not provide the direct quote the New York Times<\/em> article provides, you do have another primary source to add to your folder.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Try It<\/h3>\n

      \t