---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web Search & Evaluation

---

# Google Search

-Northeastern University
When I searched "Northeastern University" under the English Wikipedia, these are the results that showed up:
![Northeastern University](https://imgur.com/7FrwlKk.png)

-Skate Fish
When I searched skate fish without mentioning the phrase "ice rink," these were the results:
![Skate Fish](https://imgur.com/Z9oYpAr.png)

-Northeastern Huskies
When I query about Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002, these are the results:
![Northeastern Huskies](https://imgur.com/cHFdJp0.png)

-Penguin Pair
The top image of a "penguin pair" with a Creative Commons usage right was this:
![Penguin Pair](https://imgur.com/tXUP6bN.png)

![Penguin Pair-top image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/King_penguin_pair_%2851051119088%29.jpg)

-Web Credibility
![Daily Mail](https://imgur.com/14QGYLS.png)
Daily Mail is a popular website for daily news. This article was published by them. Daily Mail has a reputation for having a more conservative viewpoint, so an article like this fits that narrative. The first thing that shows this article is not credible, is the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is not to inform, but to get a reaction instead.

As Valenza mentions, researching the author of the article is important (para, 27). The author of the article, Emily Lefroy, is a news reporter who enjoys topics relating to current affairs and human interest pieces-essentially "drama." This does not make her sources reliable as she does not have much scientific background.

Overall, the main lack of credibility comes from the fact that the Daily Mail is trying to create a hot topic out of an important figure's dress code. The goal of the article is to make people criticize or question Obama's dress code with the misleading title.

-Wikipedia Evaluation
I believe it is credible Joseph Reagle worked for the World Wide Web Consortium as the official page that was published had Reagle's information on it. No information on the Wikipedia page proves Good Faith Collaboration was bestselling. In addition, one of the sources could not be found: [Technology Review](https://www.technologyreview.com/tr35/profile.aspx?TRID=384), and another was self-published. The Wikipedia verifiability policy states self-published sources as questionable sources, which would only leave one valid source in the references section. I would suggest updating reliable sources so they can be accessed, as well as adding information on book sales to verify the best-selling status.

Oldest Version
August 1, 2011