---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web search and evaluation
tags: [CDA]

---

###### tags: `CDA`
# Web search and evaluation

- [ ] __Google Search__


* What would you query to see how many pages on the English Wikipedia site mention “Northeastern University”? How many results did you get?

     > I put exact words in quotes:  “Northeastern University”, selected language in “English”, and put “site:Wikipediai.com” in site or domain. The results show that there are about 9200,000 results by searching [“Northeastern University”](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=%22Northeastern+University%22&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=site%3Awikipediai.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=).
![alt text](https://i.imgur.com/9jtGQXv.png)


* What would you query to see Web pages about the skate fish but no pages about an “ice rink”?
     > I put exact words in quotes: [“skate fish”](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=%22skate+fish%22&as_oq=&as_eq=-ice+rink&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=body&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=), a minus sign before “ice rink”, and narrowed down terms appearing in “in the text of the page”.
![alt text](https://i.imgur.com/FGcUcTm.png)


* What would you query to see Web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002?
     > I typed “Northeastern Huskies” and narrowed down the date in custom range of the google site from [January 1st, 2001 to December 31th, 2020.](https://www.google.com/search?q=Northeastern+Huskies&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&tbm=)
![alt text](https://i.imgur.com/0vwXg2A.png)


* Find me the top image of a pair of penguins with a “free to use, share or modify, even commercially” license, sometimes referred to as “labeled for reuse with modification.”
     > In *all these words* box, I typed a "[pair of penguins](https://www.google.com/search?as_st=y&tbm=isch&as_q=a+pair+of+penguins+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&cr=&as_sitesearch=&safe=images&tbs=sur:fmc)", and in the *Usage right* box, I narrowed down the licence into “free to use, share or modify, even commercially.” 
![alt text](https://i.imgur.com/eq0EExD.jpg)


- [ ] __Web credibility__
* Find a Web page of questionable credibility and apply some of the criteria discussed by Valenza and Northern Michigan University.

     > [Hong Kong police shoot protester, man set on fire](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/11/hong-kong-police-shoot-protester-man-set-on-fire-069230)
On this web page, the news is not accurate based on the content. Even in the first paragraph’s statement can be proven misleading because there’s no decisive or harsher action carried out by the government so far. Besides, the arguments in this article are very broad and vague. For instance, “In a widely distributed video, a police officer is shown shooting away a group of protesters at an intersection Monday morning”. However, there is no video display the shooting on the web page. In terms of objectivity and coverage, the article is full of political bias that shows no other relevant source or factual information to support the claims. For example, a statement, likes “More than 3,300 people have been arrested in the protests”, shows no relevant information about the arrested number. Another statement, "Protesters built barricades and blocked roads at about 120 locations across the city of 7.4 million and demonstrations were still ongoing, Tse said”, gives no factual source and lack of data evidence for readers to track the original report. Moreover, there are five advertisements on the web page and sponsored content from multiple websites at the bottom of the webpage. Last but not least, there is only one photo on this page, and it is a close-up shot image showing that the police fire tears gas. However, we cannot see the overall setting of the environment, and it is unclear when the photo was taken. Therefore, this web page shows limited credible sources and a lack of factual original information.


- [ ] __Wikipedia evaluation__

* A version of the “Joseph Reagle” Wikipedia article stated (a) I worked at the World Wide Web Consortium and (b) my book Good Faith Collaboration was “bestselling.” How does these claims relate to the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability? Would you suggest any changes to the page?
     > About the fact that working at World Wide Web Consortium, it is better to provide specific years instead of  “a longtime member”. Besides, the Wikipedia page of “World Wide Web Consortium” should be included the W3C members’ names so that readers are able to track who are the members in the organization. Meanwhile, Dr. Joseph Reagle's Wikipedia should contain the articles or works that Reagle published from “W3C” in order to present the source to be more reliable, and allows Internet users to check fact accurately. In addition, In the Bibliography, the published year of  “Good Faith Collaboration” should be included, and the number or record of the bookselling of the year should be stated, instead of using the words “best selling”.


* According to its history, when was this article first created?
     > This article was first created in 01:05, 4 February 2016.‎ 
