Slides and speaker\u27s notes for a panel presentation given at the University of Rhode Island on March 23, 2017. The presentation was part of a panel chaired by Professor Karen F. Stein (Department of English and Gender and Women\u27s Studies Program) titled  Finding Reliable Information in a \u27Post-Fact\u27 World.  Co-panelists were Professor Brian Krueger (Chair, Department of Political Science), Professor John Pantalone (Chair, Department of Journalism), Professor Andrée Rathemacher (University Libraries), and Professor Christine Zozula (Department of Sociology and Anthropology).
The panel was presented by the Coalition to Encourage Civic Engagement and was co-sponsored by the URI College of Arts and Sciences, the University Libraries, the Harrington School of Communication and Media, the Gender and Women\u27s Studies Program, the Department of English, and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Izenstark, Amanda

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIPublic Services Faculty Presentations Public Services2017Evaluate EverythingAmanda IzenstarkUniversity of Rhode Island, amanda@uri.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ps_presentationsPart of the Information Literacy CommonsThis Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Public Services at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in PublicServices Faculty Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contactdigitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationIzenstark, Amanda, "Evaluate Everything" (2017). Public Services Faculty Presentations. Paper 7.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ps_presentations/7http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/lib_ps_presentations/7Evaluate Everything!Amanda IzenstarkAssociate ProfessorReference & Instructional Design LibrarianUniversity LibrariesGood afternoon and thanks for coming! I am here to encourage you to evaluate everything!More than ever, the onus is on all of us, as information consumers, to determine who’s telling the truth.And it’s gotten harder.Why?ivanpope. (2008, May 25). Chained Library, Hereford Cathedral. Flickr. Retrieved March 17, 2017 from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ivan/2535416701 Here’s a picture of a library that was started about 1,000 years ago. Books then were expensive and rare, so you didn’t want them leaving the library.ron brinckmann. (2011, December 20). Paperback bookshelf. Flickr. Retrieved March 17, 2017 from https://www.flickr.com/photos/ronbrinkmann/6542592269 Fast forward to the twentieth century when books became super cheap - just a few dollars for a paperback! But you certainly weren’t going to spend money on a book that was just bad, or full of lies, or unreliable. And if you bought one, you weren’t going to buy more from that author.Physical Initial NSFNET Topology. (Undated). The Computer History Museum. Retrieved March 20, 2017 from http://www.computerhistory.org/internethistory/1980s/Then came the internet! This is a picture of the “early” internet, around the late 80s.The New York Times. (2017, March 20). Retrieved March 20, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.comThe Internet allowed us to put all sorts of stuff online, like the news!Twelve Years a Slave [Cover Page]. (2008, June 6). The Internet Archive. Retrieved March 20, 2017 from https://archive.org/details/twelveyearsslave00nortAnd old books out of copyright!dhmoDihydrogen Monoxide - DHMO Homepage. (2017, March 17). Retrieved March 20, 2017 from http://dhmo.orgAnd sites like dhmo.org that talk about the grave dangers of dihydrogen monoxide - water.Animal Adventure Park Giraffe Cam. (2017, March 18). YouTube. Retrieved March 20, 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClnQCgFa9lCBL-KXZMOoO9Q/liveAnd super cute, really pregnant giraffes!Before 2000, it was pretty easy.gov.org.edu.com.mil.int.netAnd a whole bunch of country codes: .uk, .ca, .au, .il, .fi, .de, .kr, .cn, etc.As far as evaluation before 2000, it was easy. You had a limited number of top level domains that generally indicated the type or quality of the website you were looking at.And it was way harder to make a decent looking website.In 2014 and onward...buzzfeed.newsreplyall.soyviz.wtftbicare.ninjamayo.educationblog.googlesee the list of generic Top Level Domains added since 2013 at https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings But in the early 200s, and really in 2014, we got a whole slew of new and interesting top level domains that people could use. Some represent what the domain owners are about - buzzfeed.news - but others are not terribly indicative. Reply All is a podcast that has nothing to do with soy, nor do they have anything to do with diamonds, and they’ve also registered the domain replyall.diamonds.But wait.en.wikipedia.orgPerhaps you were told.org = goodandwikipedia = badHere’s where your critical thinking skills come in.How?One Option:Does it pass the CRAAP Test?[Untitled image of Meriam Library, CSU Chico]. (Undated). Retrieved March 3, 2017 from http://www.csuchico.edu/vpaa/planning/academic-facilities/mlib/index.shtml The CRAAP Test was given its quirky name by librarians at California State University - Chico.C - CurrencyR - RelevanceA - AccuracyA - AuthorityP - PurposeIt’s a great mnemonic for Currency, Relevance, Accuracy, and Purpose. The order isn’t important - you could call it PAARC if you wanted to! The elements are the important parts.CurrencyCurrency: How recent is the information and is that important to your research?Coffee as an aid to digestion. (1894, March 18). The New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2017 from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C05E1D71431E033A2575BC1A9659C94659ED7CF  Here’s an article from The New York Times about coffee - from 1894! If I’m helping a history student find information about historical uses and research into coffee, this is gold. It cites research done in Germany, and maybe we can track that down!O’Connor, A. (2016, July 12). Well: For coffee drinkers, the buzz may be in your genes. The New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2017 from https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/for-coffee-drinkers-the-buzz-may-be-in-your-genes/?_r=0 But if I am interested in the most recent research, this is far better - it was published in July 2016, on the New York Times’ Well blog.RelevanceRelevance: How much does it pertain to your information needs?Coffee. (2004-). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoffeeThis wikipedia article talks about coffee 620 times! It looks really relevant.Hawthorn, C. (2017, March 19). Drake sings over Black Coffee’s ‘Superman’ on More Life playlist. Resident Advisor. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=38490But this article is not about coffee as I’m looking for it, but coffee is in the title.Hawthorn, C. (2017, March 19). Drake sings over Black Coffee’s ‘Superman’ on More Life playlist. Resident Advisor. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://www.residentadvisor.net/news.aspx?id=38490It’s just a recent article about Drake.AccuracyHow accurate is the information? This is tricky.Coffee. (2004-). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoffeeIf I look closely at the references for this wikipedia article, I’ll see that it includes a wide variety of types of sources, some of which were used because they were freely available online to the article’s editors. Some items are from trade publications, some are books, it really varies.Wesensten, N. J. (2014). Legitimacy of concerns about caffeine and energy drink consumption. Nutrition Reviews (72)suppl.1, 78-86. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-lookup/doi/10.1111/nure.12146The sources listed for this scholarly research article are… other scholarly research articles!In either case, I can look at some of the references to see if the authors’ claims are accurate.AuthorityWhat are the author’s credentials?Anahad O’Connor. (Undated). The New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2017 from https://www.nytimes.com/by/anahad-oconnorI Googled the author of the article from the New York Times Well blog, and found out about his background. He’s a reporter, not a doctor. For some of my information needs, this is fine! If I am looking for an article to send to my mother-in-law, that New York Times article is perfect. Sending her a scholarly research article would be too much, even though she’s a super smart woman.Endres, J., Graber, M. A,, & Dachs, R. (2015, May 15). If it seems too good to be true… American Family Physician 91(10), 729-730. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from http://www.aafp.org/afp/2015/0515/p729.pdf But this article from American Family Physician is written by medical doctors with a multitude of relevant credentials. (They’re actually critiquing an article about using green coffee beans to lose weight that was debunked.)Coffee. (2004-). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 22, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoffeeWhenever I use Wikipedia, I look at the article History (and the Talk page, which is on the left).Coffee: Revision History. (2004-). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffee&action=historyHere’s the History page for the Coffee article. I scrolled down a bit to look at the authors of the article. One is named Tyler Durden. Anyone know offhand who Tyler Durden is? (Character from the novel and movie Fight Club!)User:TylerDurden8823. (2012-). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TylerDurden8823On his user page, TylerDurden8823 indicates that he’s a physician. (In the book/movie, Tyler Durden was not a physician.) I’m not sure how much I trust “Tyler Durden” the “physician”!PurposePurpose: WHY was this information shared?Hensrud, D. (2017, March 4). Nutrition and healthy eating: Does coffee offer health benefits? Mayo Clinic. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/coffee-and-health/faq-20058339This is a page from the Mayo Clinic’s website - the Mayo Clinic is a real and respected hospital and research facility in Rochester, MN. I can see clearly on this who wrote the article, and I can click on his name and see what his qualifications are. This is here to educate.Then I found Coffee & Me, a .org website, which has beautiful pictures and talks about liver health, athletic endurance, effects on diabetes, and how it can help me live longer! Sounds great!Coffee and Me Home Page. (2017). National Coffee Association. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from http://www.coffeeandme.org/ And then I discover it’s a publication of the National Coffee Association, which is really trying to sell me more coffee.Remember: Domain Knowledge is Important!How much do you already know about a topic? Don’t assume that because a source is generally reputable that they don’t make mistakes.Here’s the website of the New York Times, which is generally reputable.And if you scroll to the bottom of their main page, you’ll see they list their Corrections.They are very transparent about the corrections that needed to be made for each day, and tell you what articles were corrected!Corrections. (2015, May 15). American Family Physician 91(10), 676a. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from http://www.aafp.org/afp/2015/0515/p676a.htmlEven scholarly articles have corrections on occasion. In 2015, American Family Physician listed a correction to an article about dog and cat bites.p.s.about knowing where to look...So, the title of this panel is “FINDING reliable information…” so I want to talk briefly about finding.Google Home Page. (Undated). Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://www.google.comGoogle is probably the first place most - if not all of us - go to in order to find out more about something.But this recent Engadget article includes an important reminder.Ingraham, N. (2017, March 17). OK, Google: Don’t put ads in the Google Assistant. Engadget. Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/17/google-home-ads-bad-precedent/Google is an advertising company.Google Scholar Home Page. (Undated). Retrieved March 21, 2017 from https://scholar.google.comGoogle Scholar is less ad-y, but keep in mind that not everything in Google Scholar is scholarly, and not everything scholarly is in Google Scholar. For example, when helping a patron find information about beef and nutrition, we found propaganda from the beef industry. Google’s algorithms thought it looked scholarly enough for inclusion, so there it was.The University Libraries, on the other hand, pay for resources that are curated by non-profit and other research organizations - none of whom are basing their futures on delivering ads to you.If you’re a knowledgeable and savvy searcher, you may find good and bad information everywhere.Keep in mind, though...YOU have the power.Dig deeper.Research your authors.Think.Think critically.Evaluate.Evaluate everything.Thank you!Amanda IzenstarkReference & Instructional Design Librarianamanda@uri.edu

Evaluate Everything

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&amp;context=lib_ps_presentations

Evaluate Everything

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI