The Golden Rule of Internet Research
Consider all sides.
The internet has not only made it possible for individuals to access vast amounts of information, but to choose which filters that information is viewed through. Right wing? There are plenty of websites that will give you the news with a decidedly right-wing slant. Lefty? The same holds true. Naturalist? Truther? Birther? Religious? You can get your news with any slant you want, and never be exposed to information that goes against your ideology.
The problem is, you're getting different information--or often, the same information with a wildly different slant--than those on the other side of the debate. It's nearly impossible to discuss an issue when you're not working from the same set of facts or the facts are in dispute.
If you want to be able to discuss the issues competently with people who are getting their news from "the other side", or if you just want a full understanding of the issues, you must at least expose yourself to all the information, and see it from more than one slant.
The Golden Rule of Internet Research, Part Two
Not all sites are created equal.
The internet has its own landscape, complete with institutes of higher learning and guys who stand on the street corners shouting nonsense at the top of their lungs. Unfortunately, to those who don't understand the terrain, it's easy to get lost, or to think you're in a library when you're really reading graffiti.
But there are signs!
These are signs that you're in a good neighborhood:
1) References.
A good site will reference other good sites. Primary sources will be covered later on this blog--if you know what they are, look for them. Otherwise, just ask yourself these questions: Are there references? Do they refer to the topic at hand and actually agree with the point made on the original site? Do the sites they're on seem legitimate? Are they backed by any scientific study, poll, or other applicable data?
2) Names you can trust.
If someone is referenced as an expert, do a quick search on their name...then search again, but add a word like "fraud" or "hoax". Do the same thing with whatever group, institute, or program runs a site, if possible. There's a big difference between NASA and an amateur astronomer's club, or between a reputable astronomer and some guy who has a telescope.
3) An attempt at objectivity.
Most reputable sites will present a broad view of a given situation. They may include information that would seem to go against their stance, issue retractions, or have at least a short paragraph explaining the views of those on the other side of the issue (or allowing them to explain themselves.)
These are the signs you're in a bad neighborhood:
1)Junk references or unsupported conclusions:
Bad sites will often have references to make them appear more legitimate. However, those references are usually either to other bad sites or do not support the conclusions made in the original site. One tactic is to say something unsupportable about Topic A, and tie that statement to a very reputable site that covers Topic A but never mentions the unsupportable statement.
2) Poor journalism
Extra information, surrounded by brackets, is sometimes put into quotes to increase clarity...but a bad site will sometimes add in extra information that the original speaker never intended.
Stock or altered footage will sometimes be used as background for something being explained...but a bad site may not label it as such, and lead the viewer to believe that what they are seeing is directly related to what's being said.
Correlation does not equal causation, but a bad site may do everything it can to suggest that it does. They may also show similar images that have wildly different meanings, hoping that the similar appearance will suggest correlation to the viewer.
Poor journalism comes in many forms, but be especially vigilant to non-verbal attempts to manipulate your perception of what's being shown.
3) Opinions stated as facts.
Should be obvious...but it isn't. Be especially wary of opinions used as the basis for other opinions: "Because Opinion A, then Opinion B."
Just so I don't violate my own rules, here are some nice linkies that back me up:
http://www.glencoe.com/sec/teachingtoday/educationupclose.phtml/10
http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm
