The Internet Encyclopedia (Volume 3)

P1: JDW

Research WL040/Bidgolio-Vol I WL040-Sample.cls June 19, 2003 17:13 Char Count= 0

208 RESEARCH ON THEINTERNET

a profusion of Web-based electronic journals, as well as

other publications such as newsletters, newspapers, mag-

azines, books, and hybrids. While many of these are elec-

tronic versions of print versions, some are unique to the

Web. Regardless, there are considerable advantages to the

Web format which include quicker peer-review; electronic

preprints; full-text searching; no article size limitation;

quicker delivery time; open access; exploitation of hyper-

links to connect to other related articles, authors, or sup-

plemental material; the inclusion of multimedia and other

graphic, auditory, or database file components into an ar-

ticle; links with online discussions, surveys, and other in-

teractive components; and “spaceless” archival storage.

While the migration of prestigious academic journals to

WWW format has been more cautious than originally

anticipated, there are currently very few academic jour-

nals that do not offer some type of Web presence. Even

many text-only journals are commonly using the Web as

a source of supplemental material.

Many specialized electronic journals are now available

for table of contents browsing, and in some cases key word

searching of article titles and abstracts. Some large pub-

lisher aggregates now offer search features similar to jour-

nal databases, free of charge.

EVALUATION OF INTERNET CONTENT

Faulty information on the Internet is, and will plausibly

always be, a major problem. The fact that nearly anyone

can publish on the Internet creates both an environment

of exhilarating freedom, and one that lacks any overall

quality control. The filtering and editing traditionally fur-

nished by content providers is now largely in the hands

of the Internet user. Superimposed on the particularities

of individual sites is a major structural misconception. In

traditional venues for the exchange of information, there

is a frame or package that reflects content. This frame

creates reader or viewer expectations of content. A pop-

ular magazine, for example, creates the expectation of

content that differs radically from that of an academic

journal. The same can be said of newspapers, radio, and

television. For example, some radio talk shows are liberal,

others conservative; some television stations feature pri-

marily comedy, others old films, and so forth. Readers,

listeners, and viewers are either immediately aware, or

quickly become aware of these differences. With the In-

ternet, however, the package, for example, a list of results

from a search (which is roughly analogous to a table of

contents) may contain content that differs fundamentally

with regard to quality and orientation. Wise Internet use,

or Internet literacy, can be achieved by following some

fairly common-sense guidelines.

Authority and Bias

Innate within the information contained in any publica-

tion is its authoritative credibility. It is no different on

the Internet. Information hosted by the National Library

of Medicine or the Louvre has a credibility that may be

lacking from a personal Web page. A personal Web page

constructed by an acknowledged authority in the field

has a credibility that a personal Web page constructed by

a high school student does not have. Furthermore, even

though we recognize that all information is on some level

biased, the degree of bias varies considerably between in-

formation hosted by NASA and that hosted by a racist

group.

URL Clues

One quick way of evaluating quality is by examining do-

main names, which, although not fool-proof, can pro-

vide clues. Generally speaking, government (dot-gov) sites

are accountable to the public for information hosted on

their sites, which makes them relatively reliable and un-

biased. The information on organizational (dot-org) sites

is susceptible to the viewpoint and bias of the orga-

nization, which can affect both the veracity and slant

of the information. Information hosted by commercial

(dot-com) sites is most problematic. Generally speak-

ing, commercial sites are out to sell a product and will

not host information that undermines that purpose. It

is recommended that one obtain corresponding verifi-

cation if using facts and figures obtained from com-

mercial sites. The primary exceptions are fee-based sites

such as indexes and databases and electronic newspa-

pers, magazines, journals, and books, which are gener-

ally as reliable as their print counterparts. Sites bearing

the dot-edu or educational domain are fairly reliable, but

personal philosophies typically go unedited. One can gen-

erally find solid, credible information from departmental

or research-oriented pages.

There is growing confusion and blurring of domain

names, particularly dot-org and dot-com, with a number

of for-profit endeavors opting for dot-org domains. In ad-

dition a number of new domains (dot-name, dot-museum,

and dot-info) are appearing, which in addition to country

domain codes muddy the water considerably. Still, the do-

main name is a good starting place.

Another URL clue is the tilde (∼), which often signifies

a personal page hosted by an Internet service provider or a

company, organization, or institution. As such, the author-

ity and bias of the host is not applicable, since personal

sites are not always reviewed for content by the hosting

organization. When critiquing the quality of a personal

page, reflect first on the standing and authority of the

page’s author.

URLs can be checked at a variety of domain lookup

sites to verify author, contact information, and so forth,

and this can provide users with important clues as to

the intention of the site’s creator. I suspect that site au-

thor names and site names can be searched on search

engines and journal or newspaper databases, occasion-

ally turning up exposes and countering or verifying infor-

mation. USENET searches can also turn up interesting

results.

Audience

The bias and quality of information correlates to the

intended audience of the information. Information that

preaches to the saved is not the same as information

that seeks new converts. Serious Internet researchers, un-

less they are investigating popular culture, will typically

seek information that is addressed to subject authorities,

rather than information addressed to the general public.