---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Web Search Evaluation '

---

 # Web Search Evaluation 
## Advanced Google Search 

 
1. What would you query to see how many pages on the English Wikipedia site contain the exact phrase “Northeastern University”? If Google showed the number of results (sometimes it doesn’t), how results did you get? 

* Answer: I would querey on google site:en.wikipedia.org "penguin". After googling this, 130,000 search results came up.


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.”)

* Answer: I would query on google skate fish - ice rink.

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

* Answer: In order to query to see web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002, I would google Northeastern Huskies daterange: 20010101 - 20021231

4. Here is the top image for the words "peguin pair" with a creative commons usage right. 

![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/rkl9-ypKT.png)


## Wikipedia Evaluation
 1. 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.” 

* Answer:These claims relate to the policy of variability that the page adheres to the principle of neutrality since there was no personal opinions of Joseph Reagle. It also adhered to the principle of copyright and plagiarism, since the page included in-text citations and ended with references. The article complied with original research since there was further information provided with credible sources, and lastly, due to these reasons the page complies with notability. 
 2. How does these claims relate to the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability? Would you suggest any changes to the page?

* Answer:Since the Wikipedia page adheres to the verifiability principles, I wouldn’t change anything on the page. 

3. According to its history, when was this page first created (i.e., the oldest version)?

* Answer: August 1st, 2011 


<br/>

## Reading response sets

1. [Reading Responses (Set 1)](https://hackmd.io/AXBTZdxER-mnC9-Ss-UxMw) ==(replace with URL of page you create)==
1. Reading Responses (Set 2)

Reading Response: According to a well-known researcher (Me), the average person spends 13 hours a day on social media. Can you believe it? Why or why not? The article by Joyce Valenza dives into the issue of people not being able to catch false (or as Valenza likes to call it, "post-truth") information. He advocated for news literacy as an important skill to people in recognizing how reliable information is. Joyce Valenza expresses his concern in the article by saying, "Beyond larger notions of information literacy, I see the case for a specific focus on news literacy." This not only shows his concern for the new generation of children, but rather society as a whole. 

As a solution, Valenza proposed a toolkit which is originated by the concept of triangulation. This method essentially cross references information from multiple sources to ensure credible information. Using this method, Valenza hopes to educate readers on how to identify false/misleading information. 

Just like Berkeley’s “Evaluating Internet Sources” guide, Valenza proposes his readers to check the dates and timelines of the specific piece that they’re reading. Often times, the things that an audience will read will be old news, which could be irrelevant as events can change quickly. Another thing that Berkeley proposes is to check their documentation sources, such as citing their work. Valenza focuses heavily on assessing credibility of the courses and checking the reputation of publication and author. He says, “often from social media without checking their credibility in other sources, we increase their virality.” In this sentence, he is claiming that people will believe anything that they see, especially because it is now a norm to no longer look for sources. 

After reading this article, I noticed that when scrolling on social media pages like Instagram, I tend to believe the studies that I see, even if they aren’t relevant to current events or are just entirely lacking evidence. This article has opened my eyes to false information and I shall now lookout for misleading information, considering how prevalent it is. 

/
/
/
/

Web Credibility: [This Link](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/politics/trump-iowa-victory-analysis/index.html)

This article published by CNN's Stephen Collinson on January 16, 2024, at 8:15 a.m. suggests that former president Donald Trump is winning by "a landslide" in Iowa. In the article, the author uses words to favor Trump, such as "triumph", "vow", "win", "effective". He also defends Trump with words such as "false belief" and "[Americans who are against Trump] will be sown utter dead." Small phrases like this tend to make a reader support one side, rather than see both sides of the election. 

In this context, Valenza spoke about the importance of critical thinking. This is where the reader stops and uses their thinking skills to question and soak up the information. They're supposed to consider context, possible biases, and the motives behind the information. Stephen Collinson might be trying to manipulate the reader into swaying into support of Trump by consistently using negative words to describe people who don't support Former President Donald Trump and positive words for those who do. 

One of Berkeley's tips is to see if the publication tends to favor one side or the other. CNN is well known for being highly favorable towards the Republicans, which means that there will be bias in favor of most republican members. 

Another one of Joyce Valenza's strategy in his toolkit is that the readers should consider multiple perspectives. In order to avoid bias and gain a better understanding of a topic, they should consider a democratic news channel, such as the New York Times.

All in all, these are the ways that the post by CNN's Stephen Collinson can be considered as questionable in terms of credibility. 


