Finding, Evaluating, and Using Quality Information

Editor's Notes

• #2: Introduce myself and the topic There is a lot of misleading information out there, especially when it comes to environmental information. So much is written, particularly online that is meant to sway you or even misinform you, maybe to fit a political agenda or so people can continue making a profit at the expense of the environment, so today we’re going to talk about some strategies for evaluating information online. The ability to tell accurate news from fake news is an important skill that you'll use for the rest of your life and as we’ve learned particularly in the last year, is not a skill that everyone innately has. So hopefully this is useful to you all today, not just for this class but to tell good information from bad where ever you get your information.
• #3: These are the three main topics we’ll cover today. You can see they are actually a bit out of order when it comes to the research process, but purposefully so. Usually I would talk about finding items, then evaluating them, and then capturing them, but we’re going to start today by talking about evaluating online sources and parsing good information from bad because this is the main thing I want you to walk away with today. Next, I am going to take some time to show you some search strategies for finding high-quality information online by using the library catalog and databases in addition to using Google. Lastly, if we have time, we’re going to take 10-15 minutes to talk about capturing the resources you find in a citation tool like Zotero to make organizing and citing your online resources so much easier.
• #4: So let’s talk a bit about bad information… this has been a weird last couple of years for information. It seems like everyone is talking about fake news, alternative facts, and a “post-truth” society as if this is some completely new phenomenon when, in fact, bad information has always been around. I remember when email was first emerging as a common communication device and I would get those chain emails saying a Nigerian prince needed you to transfer funds for some reason or another. And I still get emails with absolutely insane premises that say, “Forward this to everyone you know!” Maybe that has stopped for your generation. I sincerely hope so, but I’m sure bad information still shows up for you in a variety of ways. My point is that fake news is not new. In fact, this is something that librarians have combated forever. We’ve always just called it information literacy or the ability to evaluate information but now we’ve rebranded it to ”battling fake news” or something that sounds more topical.
• #5: However, fake news has become increasingly prevalent. This is an infographic from ProQuest that looks at the number of articles per day mentioning fake news. From January 20, 2009 (when President Obama took office) to July 21, 2016 (when Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President) about 1.4 articles a day used the term fake news. From January 20, 2017 – August 22, 2017, 177.1 articles a day used the term. We hear the words post-truth and alternative facts almost daily and I can see people having existential crises about how can we ever know the information we are looking at is good. It’s true there are new problems emerging particularly in regards to social media creating echo chambers around what news people are exposed to based on likes and preferences. There was a time when almost everyone received their news from the same 3-4 information sources. Now, we all have our own custom feeds showing us content that it’s likely we already agree with. Even when we don’t get content straight from social media, we tend to seek out platforms that are somewhat in line with our political views.
• #6: First, let’s talk about fake news. As soon as you try to define the term, you realize the complexity of it. We’ve already established that fake news is nothing new, but what are some of the hallmarks of fake news. HINT: Fake news is not just news you disagree with. Verified: There is nothing in the world that corresponds to the news so you can’t fact check it. It can’t be found anywhere else: If you Google, you won’t find it anywhere else. It comes from fake news sites: We are going to talk about how to identify fake news sites, but it is important to know that some sites exist not to provide information but to generate clicks and therefore revenue. They have no regard for journalism ethics like “seeking the truth and reporting it” or “minimizing harm”. If you want to know more about ethical journalism look at the Society of Professional Journalism’s Code of Ethics or the New York Times Standards and Ethics policy. That goes hand in hand with the last criteria, it isn’t authored by an expert or reputable journalist.
• #7: Fake news fall under four categories. The first are hoaxes or fabricated stories designed for clicks. Here is an example of one hoax that was particularly effective… Story: Thousands of pre-marked ballots for Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates were found in a warehouse in Ohio. Photo was actually from Birmingham England. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/fake-news-hillary-clinton-cameron-harris.html?_r=0 Author of the hoax was Cameron Harris, a recent college graduate who wanted to make some money. He wasn’t particularly political, he just wanted quick cash and thought this would be effective. . Story was eventually shared with over six million people Spent $5 on the site and made over $100,000 Pizzagate was another hoax…
• #8: Clickbait isn’t quite as nefarious as hoaxes, but they rarely deliver the content you think you are going to get. They usually have some headline that begs you to click on it and then lead you through “slideshows” that almost never deliver what you hoped for. Slideshows require you to click on more pages and generate more revenue.
• #9: The third type of fake news are sites that circulate misleading or unreliable information. Alex Jones of infoWars is a prime example
• #10: Fourth kind of fake news is satire or joke sites, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. The Onion rules this game but there are lots of others.
• #11: Bias does not mean something is necessarily fake, but the less mainstream a source is, the more skeptical you should become Made by Vanessa Otero, a patent attorney. Get your news from a variety of sources and cross the aisle occasionally to challenge your own beliefs.
• #12: As the echo chambers get worse and as politics gets increasingly polarized, I want to encourage you to consider the good words of John Stuart Mills, a nineteenth century philosopher…
• #13: We have to be particularly careful when a story reinforces this we already believe. Several months ago … NEA budget > Melania’s security Politifact - Mostly false due to incomplete data.
• #14: This is especially true with social media. It’s so easy to share, especially if a news story confirms what you already know about the world. Now going to talk about strategies for evaluating online content.
• #15: This is a litmus test for evaluating web content Currency: The timeliness of the information.  When was the information published or posted?  Has the information been revised or updated?  Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well? Are the links functional? Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.  Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?  Who is the intended audience?  Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?  Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?  Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper? Authority: The source of the information.  Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?  What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations?  Is the author qualified to write on the topic?  Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address? Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source? examples: .com .edu .gov .org .net Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness and correctness of the content.  Where does the information come from?  Is the information supported by evidence?  Has the information been reviewed or refereed?  Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?  Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?  Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors? Purpose: The reason the information exists.  What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?  Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?  Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?  Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?  Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?
• #16: Video - Start at 1:10 and end at 2:25. Academy of Tobacco Studies is based on real life Tobacco Institute – owned by Big Tobacco and its purpose was to challenge scientific reports that showed the dangers of tobacco and to derail any attempts to regulate tobacco. In 1998, the Tobacco Institute was dissolved. In 1968, should you have taken the article “To Smoke or Not to Smoke—That is still the Question” funded by the Tobacco Institute at face value? Probably not.
• #17: Red Flags
• #19: Use a fact checking site to check the veracity of claims.
• #20: https://www.nationalinsiderpatriot.com/2017/09/08/breaking-californian-dem-congresswoman-charged-on-3-counts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/california-rep-waters-cleared-of-ethics-charges/2012/09/21/75d346c2-03f3-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.fe9814d2dd8f
• #21: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/california-rep-waters-cleared-of-ethics-charges/2012/09/21/75d346c2-03f3-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.fe9814d2dd8f
• #23: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/ http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ Author - https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/sean-adltabatabai-on-being-in-the-eye-of-the-fake-news-storm-a3468361.html "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." The petition says nothing about hoaxes or profit motives.
• #24: Some are excellent sites, some are fake news, some are real media with an inherent bias. I want you to discuss these sites as a group and write down a list of what is credible or not credible about whatever site you are looking at.
• #26: LIVE DEMO Topic – Plastic Bags and Environment USearch – library catalog; millions of books, articles, artifacts, etc. Search “Plastic bags” AND sustainability Try different search terms – “plastic bags” and environment; plastic bags AND impact; plastic bags AND policy Try filters – more recent, just articles, only in English Databases – licensed content from publishers. Much of it under copyright, best information. Already vetted. Look by subject Academic Search Premier Environmental Studies and Policy GreenFile
• #27: LIVE DEMO What is it? Show backend Show frontend Capture three items related to plastic bags and environment Plug into Word Doc