1. Alexandra P. Webster-Schuler, DC Adapted and expanded by Carol A. Smith RN, BSN, MA

2.  When writing a paper and gathering information some specific things are important about the information we use: ◦ Is the information timely? ◦ Is the information valid? ◦ Is the information trustworthy? ◦ Is it biased?

3.  These things are important because our research loses credibility if our sources are not credible. ◦ Our paper begins to look less valid ◦ Our argument or position looks weak ◦ Our paper looks less original ◦ In terms of academics, the work may be discredited,

4.  The site needs to be authored by a valid source ◦ Is the author an expert in the subject matter? ◦ Are they at least educated in the subject matter? ◦ Are they a recognized authority on the subject matter?

5.  One way to determine this is by the domain name (URL)  Quick, easy to see  This is a good place to start.

6.  Every website has an “address” this is its domain name ◦ Specific to each website ◦ Very specific  It appears in the address bar at top of screen  Usually begins with ◦ www. www.  www.google.com www.google.com  www.kaplan.edu www.kaplan.edu  Ends with several different types of domain names ◦ “.com” ◦ “.edu” ◦ “.org”

7.  Example ◦ I’m Mr. Jones and I want to start a website that touts chocolate as the “cure-for-everything”.  So I have to register a ‘domain name’ ◦ “Address” for my website ◦ Each address is assigned for a specific purpose ◦ They can be associated with the proper credentials….. Or not

8.  “.org” and “.com” ◦ Anyone can register a.org or a.com ◦ Many of them are clubs, organizations and schools. ◦ However, individuals can also register ◦ So my chocolate website could be a.org  Can be misleading, because most people assume a “.org” must be an organization.

9.  If I have a website about chocolate with a.org address, does that mean I’m an expert on chocolate and illness? Does it make my website a valid source?  No. But some addresses can have more validity attached to them. Just as with homes, some addresses are better than others—usually.

10.  Does that mean a “.com” or a “.org” is not a trusted source?  No, it just means we need to use critical thinking skills to evaluate other criteria as well.  Let’s take a look: ◦ www.mayoclinic.com www.mayoclinic.com ◦ http://www.cancertutor.com/index.html http://www.cancertutor.com/index.html

11.  “.edu” ◦ Beginning in 2001, only accredited secondary education facilities were allowed to apply and use the.edu ◦ There are few that remain in use from prior to 2001 ◦ There are a few non-education facilities that use the.edu domain name ◦ However, most must be educational facilities and are verified as such ◦ Usually considered to be an authorized source ◦ www.kaplan.edu www.kaplan.edu

12.  “.gov” ◦ Use of the.gov domain is restricted to government entities ◦ In order to obtain one, an application must be submitted to the GSA  General Services Administration  So a.gov is usually considered to be a trusted source  www.nih.gov www.nih.gov  www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

13.  So, if I was granted a “.gov” for my chocolate website, does that improve its “trustworthiness” ◦ Sure it does… to some extent. It would pass the initial test. ◦ But I would not be granted a “.gov” because I’m not an authorized entity

14.  The next thing to consider is trustworthiness  Does the source have the expertise needed to write the content on the website?  Is the author educated in the information sufficiently to present as an authority in the subject matter?

15.  To determine this, we must look a little further  You’ll probably need to look for these items: ◦ “About us” ◦ “References”

16. Who are these people? Can I trust this site?

17. What if you can’t find anything but still think the site looks trustworthy?

18. Let’s practice. What do you think about this site as a source? http://suite101.com/autismhttp://suite101.com/autism

19. ◦ What are the author’s credentials? ◦ Are they listed on the website? ◦ Is the credit listed as just one person? ◦ Are several people or organizations lending their name to the website?

20.  Probably find these in a similar spot on the website  Tabs or links labeled with such tags as: ◦ “about us” ◦ “references”

21.  If you cannot find the author’s credentials  If the credentials are hard to recognize  If no author is listed  If the credentials seem “fake” Probably not a good source for a paper!

22.  Some ways to check validity of a website would be to look for sections marked ◦ “about us” ◦ “For more information” ◦ “links” ◦ “references”

23.  If a website does not give credit to outside sources  If the links or references seem biased, or politically based  It may not be a good website to use

24.  This one can be tough to evaluate.  Is the website biased toward one side of the information or conclusion?  In the medical world especially this can be important.

25.  How about websites on topics? ◦ gun control ◦ Abortion ◦ Right to die ◦ Assisted suicide  These issues are commonly 2-sided ◦ These websites are used to educate/convince people.  Are biased sites good sources for research papers? ◦ It depends.  Writing about bias  Writing about prejudice  Writing about advertising In other words, use good critical thinking!

26.  Is the information current?  In some instances this may not be important. ◦ For example, the structures in anatomy don’t change over time, the body stays the same ◦ But medical tests and treatments change rapidly ◦ The way rocks are formed doesn’t change  A quick reference should be to look for a “last updated on” banner on the site  This will give you one more tool to evaluate a website

27.  What about education?  Childcare?  Mental illness?  DNA & genetics?  Criminal justice?  The bible?  Automobile safety?

28.  A comprehensive, online encyclopedia  Contains articles on all sorts of topics, just like other encyclopedias  Written collaboratively by volunteers from all over the world. That means articles are often worked on by more than one person.  Most articles contain links that guide readers to related pages

29.  Wikipedia is constantly changing & evolving, which means the article you read today may not contain exactly the same information tomorrow. Traditional encyclopedias are updated, but usually not more than yearly.  Wikipedia articles are often updated very frequently, often within minutes of an event.  Wikipedia authors are not required to have any particular credentials.  Wikipedia articles often end with extensive bibliographies of sources.

30.  Many people think “just anyone” can write a Wikipedia article and can write anything they want, but that’s not the case. ◦ It’s not easy to publish false information on Wikipeida and have it stand for very long. ◦ It is usually removed very quickly, often within seconds or minutes. ◦ Articles about people are targets of vandalism more often than others (Goodin, December 5, 2005). ◦ If an article is not high quality, there’s usually a warning notice at the beginning.

31.  Official policies dictate how and what kinds of information should be presented in the articles: ◦ Neutral Point of View ◦ Verifiability ◦ No Original Research

32. “ Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it” (Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, September 4, 2012, para. 1).published by reliable sourcesneutralfundamental principle of Wikipediaother Wikimedia projects

33. “Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves” (Wikipedia: No Original Research, August 28, 2012, para. 1).notattributable

34. “The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented” (Wikipedia: No Original Research, August 28, 2012, para. 1).reliable, published sources [1]serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources

35. “ Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using aninline citation.” (Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 1).inline citation (Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 1). “In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [1] When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.” (Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 1).reliable sourceoriginal research [1]neutral point of viewdue weight(Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 1).

36. “All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately.” (Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 2).Wikipedia mainspaceinline citationabout living people(Wikipedia Verifiability, September 4, 2012, para. 2).

37.  Articles that follow the core policies often contain very good, expert, trustworthy information.  Articles that can’t be verified (information cross checked) and that are obviously biased are rare on Wikipedia. Information in such articles should be taken with a grain of salt, and you should look elsewhere for what you need.

38. Not surprisingly, people are researching exactly that. Here are some of the more recent findings: ◦ http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html ◦ http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school- leader/2012/04/wikipedias-reliability-implications-for- educators.html http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school- leader/2012/04/wikipedias-reliability-implications-for- educators.html ◦ http://informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis702.html http://informationr.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis702.html

39.  Check with your instructor before you do!  Wikipedia is often a good place to begin your research.  Why?  How should you use it?

40.  What is it?  Just as important as every other factor in determining the usefulness of a source.  How can you tell if a site is biased?

41.  NRA ◦ Do you think they might be biased on the issue of gun control?

42.  The NRA website is probably a little biased toward their political agenda, which includes possession of firearms. This is certainly a politically charged issue, with strong opinions held on both sides. This website is geared toward fostering the political beliefs of the NRA. Therefore, when using it, one would want to be aware that it is probably a bit biased.

43.  Is it ever okay to use a biased or unreliable source?

44.  http://www.educause.edu/edudomain/ http://www.educause.edu/edudomain/  http://www.dotgov.gov/ http://www.dotgov.gov/  http://www.pir.org/ http://www.pir.org/  http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/library/evalue.htm http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/library/evalue.htm  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_ of_view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_ of_view  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_re search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_re search  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability