---
# System prepended metadata

title: Matt Rose's Web Search and Evaluation

---

# Matt Rose's Web Search and Evaluation

### Google Search

- I entered the following into the Google search bar: 
    [**"Northeastern University" site:en.wikipedia.org**](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&ei=jHUYYKOxAuyh_Qbh4aGYDQ&q=%22Northeastern+University%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&oq=%22Northeastern+University%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoHCAAQRxCwA1DJ_QNYvZAEYIuWBGgBcAJ4AIABjwOIAfEEkgEHMS4xLjAuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwijp4C908nuAhXsUN8KHeFwCNMQ4dUDCAw&uact=5) and it had about 5,350 results.

- To see Web pages about the skate fish but none about an "ice rink," I would search: [**skate fish -"ice rink"**](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&ei=LHcYYLSsL6fv_Qb_24aQDA&q=skate+fish+-%22ice+rink%22&oq=skate+fish+-%22ice+rink%22&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoKCC4QsAMQQxCTAjoHCAAQsAMQQzoHCC4QsAMQQzoCCAA6AgguOgYIABAWEB46CQgAEMkDEBYQHlD8DViyJWC7J2gBcAJ4AIABqQGIAf8FkgEEMTEuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi08tuD1cnuAhWnd98KHf-tAcIQ4dUDCAw&uact=5)

- To see Web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002, I searched [**Northeastern Huskies**](https://www.google.com/search?q=Northeastern+Huskies&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2001%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2002&tbm=) and set Google's date range filter (under "Search Tools") from 1/1/2001 until 12/31/2002.

- To find the top image of a pair of penguins with a "free to use, share or modify, even commercially" license, I searched Google Images for [**pair of penguins**](https://www.google.com/search?q=pair%20of%20penguins&tbm=isch&hl=en&tbs=il:cl&sa=X&ved=0CAAQ1vwEahcKEwjw2IPv18nuAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQEg&biw=1039&bih=800#imgrc=hHqPHjBJgvG43M), filtered for Creative Commons licenses, and checked the License Details of the images beginning with the first. Luckily, the first one I clicked had a ["Public Domain Certification"](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/) that fit the above requirements of use. Below is the image of the penguins:

![image alt](https://i.imgur.com/2T0N86w.jpg[/img])

### Web Credibility

Since it's something I regularly but not too often seek out new information about, I chose to analyze a Web article claiming to have updates about **the release of Shrek 5.** The article was posted on [Radio Times](https://www.radiotimes.com/news/film/2020-08-03/when-is-shrek-5-released-has-dreamworks-film-be-cancelled/) and written by [Jo-Anne Rowney](https://www.radiotimes.com/author/joannerowney/). I analyzed the Web page using some of the criteria and concepts from the [Valenza reading](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/) and the [Berkeley Library guide](https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources#authority) for evaluating sources, and the first red flag I encountered was a **lack of publication date**. The only indication of a publication date range is that the body of the article makes reference to 2019 in the past tense, indicating that it was published later than this. 

The next indicator of questionable credibility was that the link to the Web page led with **sensationalized claims** of having news about the "release date, cast, plot, [and] trailer" as well as whether Shrek 5 is a reboot or sequel. This is quite obviously designed to draw in curious fans like myself who would like to know about all of those things. Heeding Valenza's warning to **"suspect the sensational,"** I was immediately skeptical from the headline, and clicking the link only brought disappointment in the form of rewritten existing information and useless speculation about the film.

Following both Valenza and Berkeley's suggestion to investigate the **credibility of the author herself** in order to determine the credibility of her article, I checked Rowney's About Me page (linked above) on Radio Times and found that many of her articles follow a similar pattern of boasting sensational headlines of current pop culture interest while reiterating information that has already been reported elsewhere by more credible sources. Furthermore, her title at Radio Times is "Audience Development Manager," which sounds more concerned with page views than true journalism. Analyzing the **purpose of the article** as the Berkeley guide recommends, it seems that Radio Times and Jo-Anne Rowney publish articles not primarily to inform the public but to garner Web page visitors for advertisers so they can profit, as the page is full of ads and includes a disclaimer stating Radio Times may earn commision from links on the site. 

Another important factor of credibility that both Valenza and Berkeley emphasize is sources. The *only link* to a source Rowney provides is that to a [Variety](https://variety.com/2018/film/news/shrek-puss-in-boots-reboot-1203020785/) article that she used to back up her claim that Chris Meledandri is "looking after the revival" of Shrek. After some further analysis, it seems much of Rowney's article is actually just a **rewriting of the Variety article**, even though she only credited it in one brief instance. Valenza accounts for this seedy practice with her descriptions of the **"herding phenomenon"** and the media **"echo chamber."** In the herding phenomenon, journalists collectively imitate each other and take the same angles when reporting the same information. This can contribute to creating a metaphorical echo chamber in which information is merely amplified through repetition rather than built upon with another viewpoint or new info. Not only does this practice of publishing an article summary under the guise of an original piece undermine Rowney's credibility, but it also makes her article a redundant piece that is not worthwhile for anyone like myself who is up to date on reliable coverage of Shrek 5.

### Wikipedia Evaluation

a) The linked version of the [Joseph Reagle](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Reagle&oldid=620740325) Wikipedia article states that Reagle was a "longtime member of the World Wide Wed Consortium." As required by the [Wikipedia:Verifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) policy, there is an inline citation linking to a source that verifies Reagle worked at the World Wide Web Consortium. However, neither the [source cited](https://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/) nor the [personal webpage](https://reagle.org/joseph/) the source redirects to clearly state how long Reagle worked for W3C, making the claim "longtime member" sourceless. Even regardless of the absence of a set timeline, the term "longtime" is based on the writer's subjective judgment rather than on neutrally reported fact. As stated by [Valenza](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/), "word choice itself is connected to truth." In order to align more closely with Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view, the word "longtime" should be removed and, if possible, the actual years Reagle was a member should be given so the reader can judge for themselves if it was a long time.

b) The claim "bestselling" is another judgement call that Wikipedia's policy of neutrality and verifiability would oppose, and the claim lacks any cited source. Rather than calling the book "bestselling" themself, the Wikipedia contributor should (a) state that the book was described as a bestseller and credit and link the source or (b) state that it made a particular "Bestsellers" list, state which list, and link it as a soruce.

The article was first created August 1, 2011, initially serving as a link to the Wikipedia article for Reagle's book *Good Faith Collaborations*.