Web Search and Evaluation
###### tags: `CDA`
# Web Search and Evaluation

## Google Search
### *What would you query to see how many pages on the English Wikipedia site contain the exact phrase “Northeastern University”? How many results did you get?*

My initial attempt to fulfill this assignment was not satisfactory. I tried implementing the techniques exemplified by Google (Ej. Site:Wikipedia northeastern university –site: northeastern University). The outcome was an overwhelming 2,860,000 results. I did not feel that the outcome was sufficiently reduced, so I decided to use a different technique. Instead, I searched “‘Northeastern University’ AND ‘Wikipedia.’” Through this technique, I got a reduced number of websites. I proceed to use both methods in later assignments.

#### *Example 1*


#### *Example 2*


### *What would you query to see web pages about the skate fish without mention of the phrase “ice rink”? (Hint: It can still mention “ice” or “rink” but not “ice rink.”)*

#### *Example 1*


#### *Example 2*


### *What would you query to see web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002?*


## *Find me the top image of the exact phrase “penguin pair” with a “Creative Commons” usage right.*

#### *Filtering Method*


#### *Result*


## Web Credibility


When utilizing Google, I like to implement the old, magnificent, and totally-not-lazy technique of simply focusing on the first few web pages that are shown to me. Most pages seem to have the information I was looking for, reducing my research time. My trust in the algorithm and its way of catering to my specific needs works perfectly when searching for “y2k fashion inspo” or the cast of the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice. However, this efficient relationship between user and data becomes more questionable as the research incorporates more complicated topics, such as politics or climate change.

My dear algorithm spends time getting to know me, listening to my problems, and, more importantly, the things I enjoy. Therefore, it only tends to show me results that will catch my attention and hide all the things that will just upset me. The problem with this situation is that sadly we do not live in a utopian society where everyone is progressive, and nobody opposes other human beings having rights. This “filter bubble” does not allow the user to have a rounded and diverse view of the world, especially when the information being presented only serves as confirmation bias. The video below provides an argument for the dangers of the filter bubble in the age of fake news.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B8ofWFx525s" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In the current online environment, filled with cloaked and hoax sites, media literacy is crucial for maintaining an educated public. In her article, [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/), Joyce Valenza critiques the absence of critical thinking among the masses regarding the consumption of news media. The articles look to educate the public on the diverse problems that plague the internet, with an infinite array of information. Valenza invites users to think critically about their sources of information while also offering a “tool-kit” meant to help individuals determine whether a website is trustworthy. Similarly, Berkley Library has an [article](https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources) that provides guiding questions that will help an individual analyze a source of information. Such resources come in handy when facing a fake news website such as [Before It’s News] (https://beforeitsnews.com/). The moment users enters the page, they are bombarded with dozens of sensationalist images and titles meant for their attention. One of the most recent ones is “Situation Update: WW3 Declared? Russia Prepares For War Against NATO & USA! Nuclear War Standoff Looming! Red Line Drawn! Exposing Gov Sponsored Child Trafficking! 500 Children Missing in System! - We The People News” and “Vaccine Demon Invasions Caught on Video?!?!” When I clicked on the articles, there was a clear absence of authors or sources for the information stated on the website. Rather than informing and presenting reliable information, the purpose of this website is “lure traffic” and use clickbait to gain profits.


## Wikipedia evaluation


Wikipedia: Verifiability is a code utilized by the users of the website, readers, and writers. The information must have a reliable source backing up the claim being presented. In the article about “Joseph M. Reagle Jr.” there are two examples that follow and ignore this code. For instance, the statement about Joseph working at the World Wide Web Consortium has a footnote that connects the material with a website that recognizes its validity. On the other hand, in the same article, there is a claim about one of the books written about Joseph Reagle being a bestseller. Such information has no connection to a reliable source. Instead, it just serves as a misleading commentary. If I were to implement any changes to the page, incorporate the summaries of the books written by the subject, and eliminate any statement that lacks validity.

According to the website, it was first created on August 1st, 2011.