---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web Search & Evaluation

---

# Web Search & Evaluation
In 2022, it is vital to be able to differentiate fake news from real news and reliable sources. With the mix of modern technology (including television media, news, and social media) and politics, it creates a unique atmosphere for news to spread in ways that were never possible in the past. Social media creates things called "echo chambers," which allows the reader to think that their sources are all reliable and true because of the fact that they are all providing information from the same point of view. It was interesting to me how Valenza pointed out how even though news has to be vetted, it can still be "processed, perhaps leaning in a particular direction." It leads me to think, are there that many sources that are truly unbiased? Or are they just contributing to the echo chamber ever so slightly?

## Google Search Queries

To query to see how many pages on the English Wikipedia site contain the exact phrase "Northeastern University," I would put in the search bar: Northeastern University"site:Wikipedia.org. I got 57,500 results. 

![Northeastern Result](https://i.imgur.com/FmVRHot.png) 


To query to see web pages about the skate fish without mention of the phrase “ice rink”, I would put: skate fish "-ice -rink". 

![Skate Fish](https://i.imgur.com/00AT6tN.png)


To query to see web pages about Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002, I would use an advanced search to search "Northeastern Huskies" and adjust the dates as seen in the image below.
![](https://i.imgur.com/CjK1XPE.png)


To find the top image of the exact phrase "penguin pair" I would use the advanced image search tool on google, as seen below. 
![advanced search](https://i.imgur.com/kynm0p7.png)

I would then search it and refine the search by clicking tools, narrowing results to images with available license info, and then click the Usage Rights button and chose the "Creative Commons." 

![penguin pair](https://i.imgur.com/7P2tyHK.png)


### Web Credibility 
I chose a website called "[InfoWars.com](https://www.infowars.com/posts/europe-suffers-horrifying-755-increase-in-excess-deaths-among-children-since-ema-approved-covid-vaccine-for-kids/)." I specifically chose an article called, "Europe Suffers Horrifying 755% Increase In Excess Deaths Among Children Since EMA Approved COVID Vaccine For Kids." In reading the articles that were provided, it was apparent that there were a lot of different ways to look for credibility in a source. According to the Berkely Library, authority should be the first thing to look for in articles. I looked for the author, or any source of credibility, which was not included on the page at all. In addition, the article had a lot of infographics with a lot of numbers and statistics, therefore I looked for a source. 
Velenca points out the importance of being able to go back to the source, and nowhere were the sources sited nor were they given a full picture for the graphs in this article. They made many outlandish claims and never were backed up by actual sources. In addition to the webpage being blatantly untrustworthy; the webpage itself had many pop-up adds that were fishy, and had other articles linked that made other outrageous claims. This further convinces the reader it is not credible. 
![](https://i.imgur.com/65Tl6GR.jpg)



## Wikipedia Evaluation
In the article about Verifiability, it emphasizes the need for a reliable source. To look for credibility, I looked at the footnote that was linked when mentioning you working at the World Wide Web Consortium. I went to the link it attached and saw that it was true that you worked there. If I were to change anything, I would change the source and make sure it was from an outside source and not published from the person that the wiki page is about. I looked at the Wikipedia History Page of this web page and says that it was created on August 1st, 2011 (which is the oldest version that was reported).  