ICYouSee: T is for Thinking

The ICYouSee Guide to Critical Thinking About What You See on the Web

NOTE: T is for Thinking now also comes in a presentation mode.

For fun and games and pretty pictures, the Web is fine.

But is the Web a good research tool?

The answer is a qualified yes, and only if you are careful.

I offer for your consideration the following six suggestions when looking at Web pages:

Make sure you are in the right place. Ask yourself why you are using the Web. Don't use the Web because it is fun and easy; use it when it is the appropriate source for the information you are seeking. An hour on the Web may not answer a question that you could find within two minutes of picking up a reference book. This is not to say there aren't useful Web sources.

The Web may have been originally designed as a medium to exchange scientific (and military?) research data, but it has become a commercial playground. The research is still there, but it is harder to find and no longer may be free or easily accessible.

 

Not everything is on the Web. Let me repeat. Not everything is on the Web. Because of copyright, cost, and demand issues (and dozens of other reasons), some materials just won't be found on the Web. Although some really old stuff does show up on the Web in new packages, most materials written before the 1980s have not migrated to the Web, aren't likely to any time soon, and probably never will.

When in doubt, doubt. Almost anyone can put up almost anything on the Web for almost any purpose. Try to differentiate fact from opinion. Look for ambiguity and manipulative reasoning and bias. Accuracy is not always easy to confirm, so you must test one source against another. Check for authors' research methods and see what supportive evidence is provided for their conclusions. Examine assumptions, including and perhaps especially, your own.

Who coined the phrase "Question Authority!"? Look at five or six different Web sites and you might get six or eight different answers. Tofa's Quote Collection attributes it to J. Baldwen [sic]. Several sites attribute the quote to Timothy Leary (with several different versions of the quote and several different spellings of his name). However, on a mouthalmighty page, Timothy Leary is quoted as saying that Socrates is responsible for the quote. Many Web pages simply credit the bumpersticker. Some are more specific than that. The Hippieland Glossary indicates it was a bumper sticker from the sixties; but an American Demographics author says it came from the seventies. Still another doesn't mention the particular decade but insists it was a Unitarian-Universalist bumper sticker. My advice: question the authority of all Web sources.

Consider the source. Try to find out who the authors of the Web page are. A well-designed Web page will let you do that easily. It may be harder to find something about the authors that indicates what gives them their expertise and by what authority they write. Even if they don't identify themselves, they should at least provide you a means to contact them.

 

Check the top level domain of the site's URL. That's the .com, .org, .net, .gov, .edu, or two letter geographic code (.jp. for Japan, .no for Norway, .sz for Swaziland, for example). These days the distinctions among .com, .org, .net have blurred and no longer indicate a United States origin, and enterprising entrepreneurs from one country have registered sites in another just to be able to wear an exotic two letter extension. However, these domain codes can still give you a clue about the Web page's author or source. And as far as I know, .gov still indicates a United States government site (a Canadian government site will end in .ca, not .gov), and .edu indicates an educational institution.

 

If you see a tilde (~) as part of the URL, be aware that the Web site is a personal page likely created by someone who was given space on the Web server in an unofficial, unauthorized capacity. You don't see these sites quite as often any more, however. Since domain names are fairly cheap and easy to obtain these days, many Web page creators have abandoned sites such as www.server.org/~studytips/ in favor of www.mystudytips.com.

 

You can't judge a Web site just by its code, however. Not all commercial sites will try to sell you something, but they warrant a different kind of scrutiny than those at a governmental site. The quality and nature of .edu sites range from research forums among faculty who may know what they are talking about to poetry by students rejected by their creative writing departments to joke collections to clearinghouses for cutting edge articles on post-partum particle physics (OK, I made that last one up. Who can you trust? And who is this author of this page, anyway?).

 

Know what's happening. Try to identify the reason the Web page was created in the first place. Determine if the main purpose is to inform, to persuade, or to sell you something. If you know the motive behind the page's creation, you can better judge its content. And here is an important, if difficult, question to ask: What is not being said?

 

An online movie review should be judged on the same merit as a review in the daily newspaper. But make sure what you are looking at is a movie review or real film criticism. What you are more likely to find on the Web is a blurb about a film supplied by the movie studio producing it or some fan's bubbling praise.

 

You can learn a good bit about a Web site by the company it keeps. Most search engines will let you search by a site's URL to see who has links to it. That won't just tell you how popular the site it. If you check some of the links, you may find the site discussed or evaluated. At least, you should discover how the site has been labeled or categorized.

 

If you are willing to digress for a moment, I do have a word to say about Web sites used by hate groups.

 

Look at details. Although great ideas and great Web design are not necessarily linked, internal clues can tell you much about a Web page. Check for the obvious things, such as good grammar and correct spelling. Note the depth of the material presented. Look for the date the page was last revised. Pay attention both to how well the links work and what kind of sources are being linked. If the links are evaluated or annotated in any way, you can learn much about the sites being linked and also about the page itself.

Graphics may be great, but do they serve any purpose other than decoration? Just as a magazine with many color advertisements may have a different purpose than a scholarly journal with no illustrations, a Web site with mirthful color and slickness may not be primarily a research site. However, even academic types can get carried away with cool icons.

 

Distinguish Web pages from pages found on the Web. Books, manuscripts, and periodical articles are not usually thought of as being Web pages, but these important types of research materials are all accessible through the Web. Keep in mind, however, that texts of books written 70 (or even 300) years ago are more likely to be found on the Web than more recent books. There is no copyright protection on the older materials, and book publishers haven't found the Web to be a convenient publishing medium for their current publications. Some, but certainly not all, current and not-so-current journal and magazine articles can be found in full text through periodical databases on the Web sites of many libraries and other institutions. Because of copyright protection and licensing contracts, however, access to these databases is restricted. Somebody is paying for them.

If you are reading this from home, you probably can't access periodical databases such as InfoTrac, FirstSearch, LexisNexis, and ProQuest. But if you are connected to the right network, you will be able to access these or other periodical databases and through them thousands of articles from periodicals.

On the Web you can't see the glossy, lurid cover, or lack of one, of the periodical that the article came from. It can take more effort to distinguish among magazines, trade journals, and peer reviewed journals when all you can see is the full text transcript. Wherever you find it, a book or article still must be considered and evaluated as you would any Web page (or any page found on the Web).

Here is a pop quiz for you:

Compare these two statistical sites related to AIDS.

Which one of the two do you think is a reliable resource for research about AIDS? Why?

Once you have the pop quiz under your belt, I'd like you to think about those six suggestions again, this time with a whole gob of questions.

Make sure you are in the right place. Does this site address the topic you are researching? Did you learn anything? Was the page worth visiting? When in doubt, doubt. Is the information on the site documented? Do you think it is accurate? Did authors indicate their research methods or provide any supportive evidence for their conclusions? Consider the source. Who are the authors of the Web page? What gives them their expertise? By what authority do they write? Are the authors and their credentials clearly identified? Who is responsible for the site? Is this a commercial, governmental, personal, or academic Web site? From what country does it originate? Know what's happening. What is the purpose of the site? Is the main purpose to inform, to persuade, or to sell you something? Is the site's text well written? Do you understand what is being said? What do you think has not been said that should be addressed? Look at details. Is the site well organized? Is all the information you needed on the top page or easily found on another page within the site? Are there misspelled words or examples of poor grammar? Do the site's links work? Are they evaluated or annotated in any way? Do they send you beyond the site to other reliable sources of information? Does the site offer anything unique? Does it tell you more than you could find out in an encyclopedia? Are the graphics on the page clear and helpful or distracting and confusing? Distinguish Web pages from pages found on the Web. Do you think this page was designed for the Web, or do you think it was originally something else? If it was originally something else, what something else was it?

However, since asking questions in the abstract doesn't help all that much, I want to make things tough on you.

Consider the topic of "The Mayan Calendar." Take a quick look at the following seven sites, then choose four to examine at more thoroughly.

1. Jenkins Introduction
2. Mayan Calendrics
3. Mayan Calendar
4. Dreamspell Calendar
5. Mystery of the Maya
6. Portals of Destiny
7. Rabbit in the Moon

Now, evaluate your four sites, writing no more than one paragraph for each one addressing the authority, design, content, and value of the site, keeping in mind those suggestions and questions above. (I know there are too many questions for one paragraph, but do your best.) If you think they exist, include one site that you believe is a really good source and another that you think is a particularly bad site. If any of the links above are not working, please choose among the other sites to get your four.

You may submit your homework assignment to me by e-mail. I promise to look over what you send, but I won't respond unless you specifically ask me to.

Students in my class: Please be sure to include your first and last name -- and I will respond to you.

Instructors: I hereby grant permission for you to use or adapt this assignment. I only have one condition. Please let me know. If it makes it easier for you, you may have your students use the link to my email address above and simply add your email address to the Cc: line. That way we will both get the results, and you can do the responding.

Additional Resources

The suggestions above are my own spin on some standard ideas about evaluating sources. Most of what I am saying about evaluating sources is not new. I have been offering similar advice for almost fifteen years in a course, Library Resources and Methods of Research. But I am only one source. Please see what these other people have to say on the matter:

• Library Selection Criteria for WWW Resources by Carolyn Caywood. An updated version of an article that appeared on page 169 of the May/June, 1996 issue of Public Libraries. Carolyn asks a series of questions related to the criteria of Access, Design, and Content, Source & Date, Structure,
• Thinking Critically about World Wide Web Resources, by Esther Grassian, UCLA College Library. Evaluation tips are provided in the form of questions related to Content & Evaluation, and Other.
• Evaluating World Wide Web Information, by Ann Scholz-Crane, Rutgers University Libraries. Included is an Internet Evaluator Checklist of questions related to Author, Local Institution or Home Page, Document Information, and Conclusion.
• Evaluating Quality on the Net, by Hope N. Tillman, Director of Libraries, Babson College. This page has been updated many times since, but it began its life as "Evaluating the Quality of Information on the Internet or Finding a Needle in a Haystack" a presentation delivered at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, September 6, 1995.
• Beyond Surfing: Tools and Techniques for Searching the Web, by Kathleen Webster & Kathryn Paul. It doesn't appear to have been updated since January 1996. The general advice, however, is still sound.
• Evaluating Web Sources, by Jan Alexander & Marsha Ann Tate, from Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University, is a teaching module.
• Betsy Richmond, a librarian at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, identifies these ten Cs for evaluating Internet resources: content, credibility, critical thinking, copyright, citation, continuity, censorship, connectivity, comparability, and context.
• Teaching undergrads WEB evaluation: A guide for library instruction, an article from the July/August 1998 issue of C&RLNewsNet, the online version (Vol. 59 No. 7) by Jim Kapoun, a reference and instruction librarian at Southwest State University. The article includes a chart related to five familiar (I hope they are familiar to you) criteria: Accuracy, Authority, Objectivity, Currency, Coverage.
• Criteria for evaluation of Internet Information Resources, compiled by Alastair Smith, of the Victoria University of Wellington Department of Library and Information Studies (DLIS), who also maintains a page of additional pointers to criteria for evaluating information resources in conjunction with the World-Wide Web Virtual Library site above.
• Ellen Meyer, a librarian at my grandfather's alma mater of Valparaiso University, in her essay, Evaluating the Quality of World Wide Web Resources, asks these questions:
  • Why is it often difficult to find relevant, useful information on the Web?
  • How do you find the best information on your topic?
  • What are the criteria by which to evaluate Web pages?
• Evaluating Internet Research Sources is an online essay by Robert Harris, Southern California College. In the essay, Harris emphasizes the diversity of information on the Internet and offers several suggestions for screening and testing Web sites.
• Evaluating Internet Resources is a guide from the University of Binghamton that emphasizes content and visual presentation guidelines.
• A similarly named guide, Evaluating Internet Resources, has been created by a graduate student at Wright State
• Web Page Evaluation Worksheet, by Nancy Everhart, Duke University, provides a checklist for you to follow as you examine what you find on the Web.

Acknowledgments:

The "Question Authority" example is an expanded idea from one I first saw used by Marge Fauver of the Eastside Branch Library, Santa Barbara Public Library System. Sarah Foregger, a student at Lewis University, and Jutta Zalud of Vienna, however, have questioned the accuracy of one of my statements regarding the Question Authority example. I challenge you, too, to discover if and where I am wrong.

I wish to express gratitude to the following helpful souls have served as my unpaid consultants and copy editors by pointing out a few mistakes and some grammatical or typographical errors found on this page: Charles Kelly of Aichi Institute of Technology; Lisa Benjamin, a law librarian; Gary Napier, Oklahoma State University; Carolsue Holland, Ph.D., Professor of International Relations Troy State University; Philip R. Evans, self-appointed "nitpicker of the day;" John-Thomas Kobos, Marian Higgins, and other members of a 1998 Library Resources and Methods of Research class; George Boatright; Randi Freeman, from Central Washington University; Caroline Jones, from the University of Surrey (Guildford, Surrey, UK); "kwmille" (mother of teenaged sons); an IC student named Jenna; Kathy, at C.O.D.; and Elizabeth T. Knuth, from the Alcuin Library. If you find any other errors on this page, your name could appear in these acknowledgments, too.

Who is the author of the Web page? What gives him his expertise? By what authority does he write?

John R. Henderson has been a reference librarian at the Ithaca College Library since 1981, having previously worked in libraries in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. He is unrelated to another Ithacan with a similar name, John S. Henderson of the Anthropology Department at Cornell University, who is a Mayan scholar. John R. Henderson received his master's degree in library science from the University of Pittsburgh back when the closest thing to the World Wide Web was something called "mechanized information retrieval." And back when he was an undergraduate at Westminster College, they were still using Hollerith cards. Mr. Henderson (note, please, he is neither Ms. Henderson nor Dr. Henderson) has been involved in Web development and articulation issues since 1994, during Thanksgiving break, when Margaret Johnson, the director of the Ithaca College Library, asked him to prepare some Mosaic workshops as a public service of the Library. In addition to designing the ICYouSee Web pages, he is the principal creator of the Ithaca College Library's ready reference Web site and has contributed to many of the Library's subject guide Web pages. He has addressed several audiences on the topic of Internet training and evaluation issues, including college professors, college students, elementary school teachers, and law librarians. Henderson is also the coordinator of the Ithaca College Library credit instruction program. He is on the Resource Base Committee of Project LookSharp, a media literacy initiative. He is an active member of STUMPERS-L, an email discussion list through which some of the best reference librarians in the world plus other researchers seek or supply answers that have others stumped. Henderson is such a swell guy that among his volunteer work he maintains the community signboard and Web calendar for the town in which he lives.

Return to the Home Page?

This page maintained by: John R. Henderson (jhenderson@ithaca.edu), Ithaca College Library.
Last modified: January 4, 2000
Author: John R. Henderson, Ithaca College Library
URL: http://www.ithaca.edu/library/Training/hott.html