# 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?

**1. Google Advanced Search**
**2. Find pages with... this exact word of phrase: Northeastern University**
**3. Then narrow your results by... site or domain: <https://en.wikipedia.org>**


**4. Advanced Search**
**5. It will take you to [here](https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=Northeastern+University&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=)**
**6. Results: 5,340**


***
* 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.”)

**1. Google Search: the skate fish -ice -rink**

***

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

**1. Google Search: Northeastern Huskies**
**2. Tools**

**3. Custom Range...From 1/1/2001 To 12/31/2002**
**4. Result:**
***
* Find me the top image of the exact phrase “penguin pair” with a “Creative Commons” usage right.

**1. Google Advanced Image Search**
**2. Find pages with... this exact word of phrase: penguin pair**
**3. Then narrow your results by... usage rights: Creative Commons licenses**
**4. Top image:**

## Web credibility
* Find a web page of questionable credibility and apply some of the criteria discussed by Valenza and Berkley Library.

**Explosion 2" reads the title of an email notification on my phone, 8:41 on a September Tuesday night.**


**Recently, there has been a series of bomb threats circulating the Northeastern area, and even just last night was yet another incident. With this news, however, followed an onslaught of speculation. Who are the bombers? Why are they bombing us? Why Northeastern University of all places?**

**Of course, EVERYONE was talking about it. I had people from across the nation text to ask me if I am okay. Emails were sent, memes bombarded Reddit, but most notable was the state of the Twitterverse at the time of the first bomb fiasco. One Tweet struck me in particular.**

**Here is the [Tweet](https://twitter.com/davidwade/status/1569887700261519360?s=20&t=K0mB9lYBMW6_Y0kjU2TlvA).**


**At the time, everyone was scared--reasonably so. As a result, we were grasping at any mere fractual of information to fill the unknown. Truth be told, David Wade's Tweet was the star of the show that night... which leads me to conducting some investigation.**

**David Wade's Tweet was one of the only Tweets that night that disseminated information about the bomb threats early on. As Valenzy discussed, this resulted in *herding phenomenon* amongst other journalists and news reports who quoted or made references to David Wade. All of a sudden, every Tweet was about the "manifesto railing against virtual reality and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg." But it was such otherwordly information that nobody thought to question it until [later on](https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2022/9/14/23352699/northeastern-university-package-explosion-manifesto). Nobody thought to "suspect the sensational," as said by Valenzy.**

**But who is David Wade? He has that iconic digital checkmark next to his name, but does that really mean anything? Is it normal to accept groundbreaking news via Twitter? Via a couple of taps on Twitter's everchanging "trending" page? Berkley Library tells us to keep these types of questions in mind when evaluating a source. Perhaps Twitter is really a 50/50 chance spinning wheel as to whether or not a source is valid.**

## 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?

**According to the policy of [Wikipedia:Verifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), I am somewhat suspicious of the ["Joseph Reagle"](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Reagle&oldid=620740325) Wikipedia page. For a claim to be trustworthy, it should be backed with a multitude of sources and citations, preferably with objective data extracted from a non-anecdotal or opinionated source.**

**It may be true that Joseph Reagle worked at the World Wide Web Consortium, or it may not be. After some searching, there was no clear, reliable evidence stating that he worked there. On his Wikipedia page, I am led to a [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium) about the W3C, but there is no mention of Joseph Reagle after a cheeky Ctrl+F search on the W3C Wikipedia page. Joseph Reagle himself is listed as a source on his own Wikipedia page which proves reliable, but he fails to clearly state anything about working for the W3C.**


**Although I scrutinized Joseph Reagle's Wikipedia page for information on his book, *Good Faith Collaboration*, stating that it was "bestselling," I failed to find it. Hypothetically, if there was a line or section containing this information, I would possibly expect a source leading to a trustworthy book ranking website, or a website with a public collection of data regarding book rankings--but none to be found. I am instead led to the [*Good Faith Collaboration*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Faith_Collaboration) Wikipedia page, which offers a handful of information regarding the book, but no clues as to how it is "bestselling," at least from what I observe.**

**I would recommend linking and citing sources that are more "obvious." Banks of data, popular trustworthy websites, more images. I would not be opposed to seeing a smiling Joseph Reagle working alongside the fabled World Wide Web Consortium. I would also recommend using more sources in general. When I scrolled to the bottom of the Joseph Reagle Wikipedia page, I was greeted with an almost blank References and External links section. More sources to support the claims made on the Joseph Reagle Wikipedia page would be comforting.**


***

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

**This page seems to have been first created in 2009, but edited in August of 2014.**