1. Evaluating Internet Research Sources
“The central work of life is interpretation”

2. The Diversity of Information
1 -Traditional information media (books, magazines, organizational documents)
Someone has to approve the content before it is made public

3. The Diversity of Information
2- Internet sources
No one has to approve the content before it is made public
As a searcher, it is your job to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs

4. The Diversity of Information
On the Internet, Information exists in a large variety of kinds:
facts
opinions
stories
interpretations
statistics

5. The Diversity of Information
On the Internet, Information is created for many purposes:
to inform
to sell
to present a viewpoint
to create or change an attitude or belief

6. How to evaluate Internet sources Getting started: Screening Information
Pre-evaluation:
What are you looking for?
Facts
Opinions ( authoritative or just anyone’s)
Reasoned arguments,
Statistics
Narratives
Eyewitness reports
Descriptions

7. How to evaluate Internet sources Getting started: Screening Information
Select sources likely to be reliable:
Do sources offer the following information?
Author’s name
Author’s title or position
Author’s organizational affiliation
Date of page creation or version
Author’s contact information
Some of the indicators of INFORMATION QUALITY

8. How to evaluate Internet sources
USER-FRIENDLY
ACCESSIBILITY
RELIABILITY
USABILITY

9. Information quality RELIABLE INFORMATON
Reliable information serves as the basis for:
beliefs
decisions
choices
understanding our world

10. Support (not workability)
Information quality
THE C A R S CHECKLIST
Credibility
Accuracy
Reasonableness
Support (not workability)

11. The CARS Checklist
CREDIBILITY: why should I believe this source over another?
Author’s credentials
Evidence of Quality Control
Metainformation

12. The CARS Checklist CREDIBILITY Author’s credentials
Author’s education/training/experience
Author provides contact information
Organizational authorship
Author’s reputation or standing among peers
Author’s position (job function, title)

13. The CARS Checklist CREDIBILITY Evidence of Quality Control
Information presented on organizational web sites
On-line journals that use refereeing (peer review) by editors or others
Postings of information taken from books or journals that have a quality control process

14. Metainformation is information about information
The CARS Checklist
CREDIBILITY Metainformation
Metainformation is information about information
Summary Evaluative
-Abstracts Judgment
-Content summaries Analysis of contents
-Tables of contents (reviews, ratings, commentaries)

15. The CARS Checklist Indicators of Lack of CREDIBILITY: Anonimity
Lack of Quality Control
Negative Metainformation
Bad grammar and/or misspelled words

16. The CARS Checklist
ACCURACY: how can you assure that the information is actually correct (up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive)?
TIMELINESS
COMPREHENSIVENESS
AUDIENCE AND PURPOSE

17. The CARS Checklist ACCURACY Timeliness
Up-to-date information: be careful to note when the info you find was created and whether it is still of value (‘old’ not always means ‘useless’!)
Dynamic and fluid nature of information: check and re-check your data from time to time (especially in technology, science, medicine, business, and other fields always in flux).

18. The CARS Checklist ACCURACY Comprehensiveness
Information should be comprehensive
Information should not leave out important facts
Information should offer qualifications, point out consequences and alternatives as conclusions

19. The CARS Checklist ACCURACY Audience and Purpose
Take into account the audience and the purpose of the information
Be sure that the information is appropriate to them
Be sure that the intended audience and purpose are appropriate to your requirements

20. The CARS Checklist Indicators of Lack of Accuracy:
No date on the document
Vague generalizations
Old date on information known to change rapidly
Very one sided view

21. The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS: is the information fair ?
objective ?
moderate ?
consistent ?

22. The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Fairness
A site should present its information in an accurate manner:
possess a calm tone
use a reasoned tone
be cautious of highly emotional writing

23. The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Objectivity
Be neutral as much as possible
Avoid conflict of interests

24. The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Moderateness
Is the information believable and valid?
Does it make sense?
If the information is surprising or hard to believe, give evidence and support it.

25. The CARS Checklist REASONABLENESS Consistency
Information/argument should not contradict itself (be coherent!)
Information/argument should not be influenced by the writer’s view of the world

26. The CARS Checklist Indicators of Lack of Reasonableness:
Intemperate tone or languages (‘stupid jerks’)
Overclaims (‘Thousands of children are murdered every day in the United States’)
Sweeping statements of excessive significance (‘This is the most important idea ever conceived’)
Conflict of interest

27. The CARS Checklist
SUPPORT: how can I support my information? Citing sources strengthens the credibility of the information.
Source documentation or bibliography
Corroboration
External consistency

28. The CARS Checklist SUPPORT Source documentation or bibliography
What kind of support for the information is given?
Where did this information come from?
Are the sources listed?
Is there a bibliography or other documentation?

29. The CARS Checklist SUPPORT Corroboration
See if other sources support this source
Confirmability corroborates the truth
Find, at least, 3 sources that agree with your findings

30. The CARS Checklist SUPPORT External consistency
Compare what is familiar (corroborated) in the new source with what is familiar in other sources
There must be coherence among different sources about the same information

31. The CARS Checklist Indicators of Lack of Support:
Numbers or statistics presented without an identified source for them
Absence of source documentation when the discussion clearly needs such documentation
You cannot find any other sources that present the same information or acknowledge that the same information exists