---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web Search and Evaluation

---

# Web Search and Evaluation
## Caz's commentary on | [Truth, truthiness, triangulation: A news literacy toolkit for a "post-truth" world](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/) by Joyce Valenza

![](https://c.tenor.com/bTH_TkJjIJwAAAAd/hasan-hasan-abi.gif)

62% of people get news on social media. Surprising? definitely not. I am not innocent of this but also not proud of it. Though, let me defend my case through what Joyce mentioned in her article.

Anything that happens or that is believed to have happened in the world is posted everywhere. all the time. all at once. In this influx of posting, knowing what is true or not is usually done by seeing if other people have posted about it or not.
*For me the way I figure out if something is real or not is through what is trending on Twitter or my mom confirming it for me.*

Joyce wrote about fake news in **2016**. Fake news can come from pure fake news sites, hoax sites, satirical sites, and through born-digital images and edited images. Joyce spoke about its frightening potential to be viral causing it to become more known to unknowledgeable viewers.

*The virality of fake news has probably quadrupled since the birth of TikTok.*

I believe that the reason for this is what [oxford](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xcW7Tg5E34&t=1s) would define as **truthiness** or post-truth.

- "Oxford defines the word as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief."

This word *I feel* is a perfect word to describe why we are so brain-broken when it comes to consuming media. The generations that grew up with the internet, learned to use the internet in a way that it really just entertains them. *At least the way I use the internet is that way*. When I consume media I am consuming it from sources I find entertaining. My news source is [Hasanabi](https://www.twitch.tv/hasanabi), Twitter and or [H3H3](https://www.youtube.com/c/H3Podcast). These sources are biased, comedic, and not always going to be accurate and I am aware of that.


Earlier in the article, what Joyce points out is concerning for professional journalists. It is important for us to be able to dissect the media we consume and be able to reliably verify the news. Although it is important to do so, and usually a part of our education system to learn how to, we do not. [A Stanford Graduate School of education report](https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934) showed that at every education level students lacked the ability to distinguish, evaluate, verify, and assess information in any form. To fix this Joyce alongside the [Berkeley Library](https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources), give us ways to verify a source.

## Google Search
- 11,200
![](https://i.imgur.com/n2xwbN6.png)

- 53,700,000
![](https://i.imgur.com/ErK2Laf.png)

- Top Image of "penguin pair"
![](https://live.staticflickr.com/8646/15798589947_7b6d029ae8_b.jpg)

## Web Credibility | site in question  louderwithcrowder.com

This website has no about me section for the web owner themselves. For article writers, for example, the article ['I DON'T NEED HELP!': HOMELESS TAKE OVER LOS ANGELES, THROW FECES AT RESIDENTS](https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/homeless-los-angeles-poop), the writer is Joseph Gunderson. When clicking the name to get some information on him, there are no credentials or facts about him.
The title is sensational, being written in all caps and exaggerating the homelessness problem in Los Angeles. The article links to its own website as sources alongside fox11.

The purpose of the article seems to be to discredit the democratic party, trash on LA and advocate for the homeless to be "thrown" into state asylums. The intended audience is conservative people. The website entirely seems to be catered to the conservative people as a safe haven. At the end of Gunderson's piece, he states
- "Facebook doesn't want you reading this post or any others lately. Their algorithm hides our stories and shenanigans as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface? Bookmark LouderWithCrowder.com and check us out throughout the day! Also follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Gettr!"

The only people who would access this website would be those who are conservative or watch Steven Crowder's podcast on youtube, where he promotes this website for "less filters"

There is little to no credibility on this website as even the ads on the website look like they will cause viruses if you click them.

![](https://i.imgur.com/zO5eb71.png)

## Wikipedia Evaluation
- The Joseph Reagle Wikipedia page's two statements relate to the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability because they show both ends. The first statement on Reagle's former employment gives a citation to verify the reliability that Reagle actually worked at the World Wide Web Consortium. The citation directly links to a formal 'about me' page from W3C about Reagle. The second statement, about Reagle's best-selling book, has no citation. There is no evidence that his book was a best-selling book. Wikipedia in its policy emphasizes not to take the information on one of its pages at face value and to make sure the source that the page cites is reliable. The changes I would personally make is to remove the wording bestselling.
- According to the history of Joseph Reagle's Wikipedia page, the first page was created on August 1st, 2011.





