Evaluating Online Sources

Marie K. Shanahan

University of Connecticut

Spring 2013

Hierarchy of Source Reliability

1. Face-to-face conversations

2. Source (paper) documents

3. Voice-to-voice conversations, Skype

Are some sourcing methods more dependable than others?

Hierarchy of Source Reliability

4. Electronic documents (PDFs)

5. Email exchanges

6. SMS (text messaging)

7. “Official” websites – businesses, government, educational institutions

8. Personal websites / blogs

9. Social networking websites - Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube

The Internet

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge."

— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia

Digital information sources

Newspaper web sites

TV websites | cnn.com

Aggregators | Drudge Report, Yahoo News, Storify

Blogs

Independent/niche news sites

Social media sites

Journalism Sourcing 2.0

Information supplied by known/official sources

Unknown/unofficial/unbounded sources- Web pages- E-mail- SMS- Twitter- Flickr- Facebook- YouTube

“Crowdsourcing”

Image courtesy of photoxpress.com

Sourcing 2.0 Advantages

Increase in overall reporting

Unofficial sources whose reports match official sources become more reliable.

Sourcing 2.0 Challenges

Information overload

How to verify information from those unofficial or computer-mediated sources.

“Wild and Wooly”

When in doubt, doubt.

Anyone can put information up on the web and distribute quickly to a wide audience.

Exercise

Open Google search

Type in: “aids” “women” “facts”

Evaluate the page

http://147.129.226.1/library/research/AIDSFACTS.htm

Search engine rankings

FACT: A top ranking in Google does not mean information is more relevant or more trustworthy.

Fake, phony, biased & premature Do not assume information is

accurate, up-to-date, or unbiased.

Rush to be “first” = tradeoffs.

5-40% of web accounts are fraudulent

Evaluating Online Sources

Questions to ask:

Authority

Accuracy

Objectivity

Currency

Coverage

Value

Authority

Who authored the information?

What gives them expertise?

Truncate the site’s URL or address.

Check whois domain name registry.

Accuracy

Are the facts documented?

Are facts and arguments supported by references to reputable sources?

Does the information contradict other reliable sources?

Objectivity

What is the purpose of the website?

Does the source accept advertising?

Have a hidden agenda, or rigidly narrow point of view

Conflict of interest?

Currency

How long ago was the page updated?

Check www.archive.org – “The Wayback Machine” – to see how site evolved.

Coverage

Does this site address the topic you are investigating?

Is the information basic or detailed and scholarly?

However complex the language might be, is the information substantial?

Value

Does the site have a professional appearance?

Are there words spelled wrong?

Good grammar?

Attribution and transparency

If you conducted your interview with a source over the phone – say so.

If you conducted an interview via email – source it as such.

If you grabbed information off a Facebook page and it was the basis for your report, reveal that to your audience.

More transparency = more credibility

Correcting Misinformation

The true power of media – including public relations and advertising, rests in the ability to influence society through truth telling.

You have a responsibility to correct any errors you have amplified. The work of journalists can affect people’s reputations and livelihoods.