Skip to main content

Home/ Diigo In Education/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by mrshathaway

Contents contributed and discussions participated by mrshathaway

mrshathaway

Evaluating a Website or Publication's Authority - Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers - 25 views

  • most of us would like to ascribe authority to sites and authors who support our conclusions and deny authority to publications that disagree with our worldview
  • Wikipedia’s guidelines for determining the reliability of publications. These guidelines were developed to help people with diametrically opposed positions argue in rational ways about the reliability of sources using common criteria.
  • defined by process, aim, and expertise.
  • ...11 more annotations...
  • fact-checkers of all political stripes are happy to be able to track a fact down to one of these publications since they have reputations for a high degree of accuracy, and issue corrections when they get facts wrong.
  • a reliable source for facts should have a process in place for encouraging accuracy, verifying facts, and correcting mistakes
  • Process
  • researchers and certain classes of professionals have expertise, and their usefulness is defined by that expertise
  • Expertise
  • while we often think researchers are more knowledgeable than professionals, this is not always the case
  • Reporters, on the other hand, often have no domain expertise
  • Aim
  • Aim is defined by what the publication, author, or media source is attempting to accomplish
  • One way to think about aim is to ask what incentives an article or author has to get things right
  • In general, you want to choose a publication that has strong incentives to get things right, as shown by both authorial intent and business model, reputational incentives, and history
1 - 1 of 1
Showing 20 items per page