Deciding what information to trust is absolutely central
to what science is (unless you're planning on personally
re-doing every important experiment from scratch :-).
On 04/07/2003 11:27 AM, Pat Viele wrote:
... I have a sample check-list for evaluating web pages.
That page suggests the criteria of Currency, Authority,
Reliability, Purpose, Coverage, and Style.
Under Reliability it says nothing about whether the
content makes sense; it asks only whether "most" of
the site's outbound links work.
Under Authority it says:
* Is the author identifiable? Look for links that say "Who We
Are," "About This Site, " or something similar.
* Is there contact information for the author? (e.g. e-mail
address, mailing address or phone number)
* What is the author's background? (e.g. experience, credentials,
occupation, have they written other publications on the topic?)
* Does the author cite his or her sources?
* Is this site linked to often by other sites?
* Do links on this site lead to other reputable sites?
* Are there spelling errors or incorrect use of grammar?
* What domain does the site belong to? (e.g. edu, gov, com, etc.)?
Except for the fourth item, I must object. I object
because of what is there and because of what is omitted.
I consider that list to be the epitome of shabby
scholarship, a veritable checklist of what one
shouldn't do. It emphasizes superficial form over
function.
Suppose I am reviewing a manuscript submitted to Phys
Rev. Am I supposed to reject it if the authors don't
have famous names or a famous institution? Or am I
supposed to accept it just because they do?
Scientific integrity demands that I judge Phys Rev
manuscripts based on the content, not on the affiliation
of the authors! Why should I judge web sites by any
other standards?
I'm sorry to say this so harshly, but I don't see any
way to sugar-coat it. I call 'em like I see 'em. That
applies to judgements about scientific documents, and
it also applies to meta-judgements about how we should
judge documents.
Librarians are supposed to ask subject-matter experts
to determine what is reliable. Not the other way around.
More generally, we must recognize the profound difference:
there are routine ways of deciding if something is "popular"
or "authoritative", but alas being popular and authoritative
doesn't make something _reliable_.