Don’t take anything you read online at face value. It’s easy
to be misled by online content that appear legitimate unless you know what you’re
looking for and how to filter out the good from the bad. People that are not
trained nor have the skills to identify credible material will continue to be
the targets of advertisers and peddlers of misinformation. Some websites are
easy to identify as fake but others can be built to appear trustworthy when in
fact they are not.
The most obvious of the websites to avoid when searching for
the most factual information possible are blogs (excluding this one), personal
websites and certain wikis. Any website that contains an article that doesn't
immediately declare that the expressions or thoughts of the author are just
opinion should be avoided. A source that wants to be taken seriously will freely
admit when they are wrong and quickly make their corrections public. Today’s
public debate on the validity of global warming science is a very good example
of fact being challenged by fiction.
A trustworthy site for the global warming topic can be found
at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
. This site contains massive amounts of factual scientific evidence on the
impact of fossil fuel pollution with easy-to-read charts and graphs compiled by
unbiased researchers. In contrast to a website full of reliable sources and
data is a website from The Heartland Institute http://heartland.org/issues/environment
. The articles on this website are full of accusations, fallacy and seem to
push their beliefs with no credible sources.
A recent website constructed and written by the Department
of Defense commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of the
Vietnam War has been the subject of historical accuracy in recounting the
events of that terrible time. One would think that a government funded
educational outreach tool would appear to be honest about the facts presented.
Apparently that’s not the case. It seems that the Pentagon is rewriting history
to continue to support the lies that got us into that war in the first place as
well as downplaying the atrocities that happened during it. It can be found
here: http://www.vietnamwar50th.com/timeline/
An article identifying the missing information is posted at: http://www.thenation.com/article/178427/misremembering-americas-wars-vietnam-iraq
I have been saving the best for last! The National
Republican Congressional Committee recently bought hundreds of URL’s of which
were used to create up to 20 fake websites. They appear to endorse their rival
Democratic candidates when in fact they are a platform to smear the politician
in hopes of having them voted out of office. The website only discloses this
fact in small fine print and links to a Republican controlled donation fund in
the hopes of misleading the voter. Here are a couple examples: http://nancypelosi2014.com/ - http://annkirkpatrick.com/
It can be clear that some websites are obviously not
credible while others are harder to detect. Yet if one follows just a few rules
reliable information can be found with a little extra work and tenacity. First
find sources that have verifiable credentials in the subject area you’re
looking for. Those sources should be proven to be an authority in whatever it
is they are declaring. Intelligent readers and researchers are skeptical and a
good source will anticipate that skepticism by providing background information
.
Human beings by nature are biased. This should be always on
the mind of the researcher. Even when the facts seem correct, it’s unfortunate
that there is an inevitable bias from the source and should be taken into
account. The best and most reliable information should be as bias free as
possible.
Good information will have a thick skin. It will stand up to
scrutiny and will follow the standards of scientific research in that the
experiment can be replicated. Also that information can be verified and
corroborated to be true everywhere.
The Internet has almost boundless opportunities in
gathering, disseminating and using information. Getting to know the difference
between the good and bad is not hard. A little skepticism can go a long way in
separating the valuable from the crap.
