CyberWatch Column

Bad Information

M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP-ISSMP

Professor of Computer Information Systems

Norwich University, Northfield, VT

This is another in a continuing series devoted to how ordinary people can protect themselves when using the Internet.

The Internet and in particular the World Wide Web are in some ways as great a change in information distribution as the invention of writing 6,000 years ago and the invention of movable type 600 years ago.  Where publishing once required printing presses, capital and extensive administrative infrastructure, or at least relatively expensive mimeographs (1950s), photocopiers (1960s) and printers (1970s), today publishing to a potential audience of millions can be essentially free.

Unfortunately, freedom to publish  has liberated some people from responsible reporting, adequate research, and even rudimentary principles of spelling and grammar.  The dictum, "Don't believe everything you read" is even more important when reading Web-based information.  Individuals may publish incorrect versions of technical information, unsubstantiated theories about historical and natural events, and revisionist history.

You can imagine the effect of this kind of misinformation on children if they are not trained in critical thinking and skepticism about information they encounter on the 'Net.

Another source of information is the USENET — that collection of thousands of discussion groups on every conceivable topic.  In a moderated group, messages are either passed through a moderator who decides whether to post them for participants or the moderator deletes offensive or otherwise inappropriate messages.  Not all moderated groups are reliable, and not all unmoderated groups are unreliable.  However, many unmoderated groups distribute unsubstantiated information from people who seem to enjoy insulting other participants and making outrageous claims about any topic that comes up.  Children should be trained to recognize emotional and inflammatory language and to be skeptical of information from rants.

Practical Guidelines:

• Look for clues about the reliability of sites:
• Presence of the author’s name, title, institutional affiliation, academic credentials
• Date of publication and history of revision
• References to independent sources of validation (including specific URLs, not just “Microsoft” or “The FBI”)
• Reputation for reliability of the organizations publishing the information
• Lack of obvious benefit for distortion of information (e.g., Amnesty International rather than that dictatorship protecting its innocence)
• The degree to which other trustworthy sites concur in the information on a particular site
• Internal consistency – lack of obvious self-contradictions
• By how often reliable Web sites link to the particular site under evaluation (use the Google search engine).
• Show children some off-the-wall sites that contradict what they already know (e.g., search on “flat earth” using Google < http://www.google.com >.  Then go to more reputable sites to cross-check information from authoritative sources.
• Point out stylistic clues that a site may be less than trustworthy:
• Anonymous sources;
• Incompetent spelling and grammar;
• Presence of obviously false information;
• Inclusion of long-outdated information;
• Use of lots of exclamation signs!!!!!!
• Excessive use of CAPITALIZATION;
• Statements expressed in absolute terms ("All ___ are ___."  Or "No ___ can be ____.")
• Intolerance of ambiguity ("There can be no doubt that ______.")
• Overblown claims of importance (“ACME wart remover:  the most important development in medicine in history!”)
• Claims that violate common sense (“Using rat poison is better for your teeth than using toothpaste.”)
• Intemperate and ad hominem remarks ("Only an idiot would believe that ______ or disagree with the statement that ______."
• Show kids examples of more reliable sources of information: e.g., scientific and professional publications, public-interest research groups, industry associations, government Web sites, and reputable news sources.

“An Educators' Guide to Credibility and Web Evaluation” (1999) by Toni Greer, Donna Holinga, Christy Kindel and Melissa Netznik (University of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign) < http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/credibility/ >