II. Information Quality versus Quantity

Formal uses of the Internet

There are many ways to accomplish the same objective on the Internet. Its organization-or lack thereof-is exactly what makes it most appealing for hard-core users. Rather than a tidy hierarchy of search terms linked together through a conceptual logic, like the Dewey Decimal System you learned in grade school, topics on the Internet can be accessed through multiple paths. The topic being researched is much like the center of a spider's web, containing many connectors coming from many different directions.

Let's say that you are interested in locating information on sexual discrimination on college campuses. One possible set of resources will be on home pages and in chat rooms, where people display their point of view, or can exchange information about the topic. What you find might be from the personal experience of someone who has been the victim of sexual discrimination, as well as those who may be accused of it. Individuals sometimes exchange email addresses through their contact in chat rooms around a topic, so you might end up having a series of personal communications with someone who has experienced just what you are thinking about exploring.

It is usually clear in chat rooms or on home pages that an individual is speaking about his or her own experience, much as if you were talking to different people about the topic. It is relatively easy, therefore, to keep the information in perspective. You are relating to the individual as just another person with something to say. Occasionally someone identifies him- or herself as an authority on the topic (which may or may not be accurate), or sounds so much like you that you identify with their perspective and forget that this is just someone whom you have not met and with whom you exchange written notes. But generally, the idea that one person's opinion or judgment is not necessarily more valid than another's is not difficult to hold onto in a chat room discussion. Home pages and chat rooms can be important sources of information exchange, and can be very useful to you in your search for information.

Informal discussions of the topic might be a first place to look, but eventually you will need more information. A second grouping of resources might be through government agencies dealing with sexual discrimination. A third set of resources might be legal decisions and documents, including historical information about sexual discrimination. Each of these different "sets" represents a completely different way of coming at the topic, and each can give a very different perspective. In your search, you will probably come upon a mega-site that contains links to many other Internet locations on the same topic. These sites can be extremely useful resources in your search, because each link is likely to have its own links to resources, thereby widely expanding your sources of information.

Internet sources differ in levels of reliability where use of factual information is concerned. Some sources, such as the US Bureau of the Census, are considered "trustworthy" sources. Other sources, such as chat rooms or personal home pages, may contain information that is based in part on belief, ideology, or unsubstantiated fact. Web sites produced on behalf of authorities such as multinational corporations, legal firms, health care businesses, and political organizations, typically blend beliefs concerning issues with fact. In essence, it is necessary for you to be a critic of views presented in any given resource, no matter how reliable it may appear.

Personal uses of the Internet

Let's say that rather than seeking information about sexual discrimination, you have just learned that your close friend or relative has what is called Gulf War Syndrome, and he is deeply depressed. You are going to the Internet for any information you can find about this problem, as well as anything available on the impact of war on soldiers. The stakes-especially the felt need for immediacy-have risen enormously in this search. Because of your emotional vulnerability, your radar for accuracy or depth of analysis might be off. What are some of the sources you will look for, and how will you know when to stop looking in one resource "set" and move to another?

On the topic of gulf war syndrome, the range of information will come from personal communications, chat rooms, on line newsletters and other publications, government documents, national and international organizations, religious associations, state and local statistics, health and human welfare agencies, medical journals, and especially in the form of infomercials.

Infomercials are advertisements designed to appear to be authoritative articles, often including scientific studies with statistical analyses, and conclusions. The intent of the infomercial, however, is usually used to sell a product. Occasionally it is used to sell an idea, modeled after campaign ads that "sell" a candidateInfomercials are very common for sites concerning health and well being, computer hardware and software, and financial investments. Sometimes it takes very careful analysis to determine which site is actually marketing a product and which site is providing information about your topic.

Hope N. Tillman (1998) identified a range of categories of information from vanity sites to very scholarly and specific informational sites, with promotion and marketing infomercials peppered throughout. The writing in vanity sites or home pages and home Web sites has no publisher to provide editorial and standards review, though the pieces might be thoughtfully and well written. Vanity site publishing can be the most difficult of sites to assess: an article included in one site might have been thoughtfully written with accurate data by an expert on the subject. Or it might have been skillfully written by a zealot who made up data to support a point of view. Most vanity site publishing, however, is by an individual who has a working paper-perhaps from thesis research-they choose to share. Nevertheless, once again a critical approach to what you read is important.

Knowing when to stop

Lack of information is usually not an issue on the Internet. More generally, students become overwhelmed with the broad and seemingly endless range of information available. If you keep a log of the resource "sets" you have accessed-vanity sites; US government agency sites; perhaps sites of professional organizations related to your topic; and sites of organizations and associations interested in your topic-you will begin to recognize the balance of your search.

Include in your log

• The author, title, type of medium, URL address, and date you accessed the work
• Category of the resource (popular? government? chat room?, etc.)
• Ease of determining whether the site matched your needs
• Ease of identifying the author or creator of the site
• Authority of author or creator
• Comparability to related sources
• The last update on the site
• Personal notation for your future reference

When you have gathered both "official" and "unofficial" information, made necessary contacts for on-going information gathering, and begun to see the same sites referenced again and again-you are probably ready to stop looking for the present. You need to remember that information on the Net can change daily, and referring to your log so you can revisit the better sites is a good plan.

Connecting Virtually: Evaluating the material

Debate rages at even the most authoritative Web sites on the reliability of the information accessed through the Internet.. The US Bureau of the Census, for example, has been criticized for providing skewed demographics of minorities and "blended" people. These numbers make a difference: budgeting for social policy, for example, assumes an accurate census even though it is common knowledge that minorities are grossly underrepresented.

The uses of people without their consent for tests on radiation exposure by the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as the National Institutes of Health syphilis tests from the 1930s, are examples of "authoritative" information of highly questionable, if not downright unethical, sources. Reliable Web sites need to be evaluated for ethical considerations as well as for underlying logical fallacies.

Exercise 1

The following Web sites provide information about research ethics. Provide an analysis of their content, using Downes' fallacies in logical thinking categories (referenced above).

Human Radiation Experiments (DOE)

Human Subjects and Research Ethics; Nazi Medical Expenses

Tuskeegee Study

Exercise 2

Locate the Sierra Club Web site. Using categories provided in Downes' Web site referenced above, see if you can identify the nature of Sierra Club bias. Now return to two previously-cited Web sites, and identify the nature of the arguments presented at each of these sites.

Abortion Perspectives

Preventing and Ending Pregnancy

What similarities do you find in the sites? What are their primary differences? Which of the categories of logical fallacies do you believe apply to each of these Web sites? Which Web site are you most likely to believe? Why?

Exercise 3

Update your personal glossary.

References

Tillman, H. N. (1998). Evaluating Quality on the Net [Online]. Available: http://www.hopetillman.com/findqual.html [1999, May 20].