---
# System prepended metadata

title: Web search & evaluation

---

# Web search & evaluation

### Google Search
* To see how many times the phrase "Northeastern University" appears on the English wikipedia website, I typed "'Northeastern University' site:wikipedia.org" into Google's search box utilizing the Advanced Search feature. It directed me to about 12,200 results. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/xCz7I0B.png)

* To see web pages about the skate fish without mention of the phrase “ice rink," I would have "'skate fish'" -'ice -rink'" typed into the Google Search bar by having these inputs in the Advanced Search page.

![](https://i.imgur.com/cJvI0n5.png)

* To see web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002, I would type "'Northeastern Huskies'" into the Google Search bar and then filter the time period toggle to only show results from 2001 to 2002. 

![](https://i.imgur.com/u9j94Jv.png)

* The top image of the exact phrase “penguin pair” with a “Creative Commons” usage right showed this image, and upon clicking on its License details, I was then brought to this [website link](https://www.pixtastock.com/about-license).

![](https://i.imgur.com/TJNzxrd.png)

### Web Credibility

An exemplary website with very questionable credibility is [The Onion](https://www.theonion.com/), a satirical news platform that tells very skewed and mocking versions of current events, without coming forth to give disclaimers. As described in the article by Valenza, sites like The Onion, while not necessarily publishes entirely fake news, presents information "with a comical, often exagerrated spin." In many of its articles, there are instances of Stephen Colbert's introduction of the word *truthiness*, which essentially is when a person making a statement does so purely based on their intuition and not evidence, logic, or real facts. This concept is generally seen through the subtle opinions and pokes that The Onion writers often include in their works. Only in the "About" section, is there a brief mention of satire-- otherwise, the website makes it significantly difficult to tell right off the bat if an individual were to have no knowledge of the platform beforehand. 

The website also doesn't fulfill many of the checkpoints highlighted in the Berkeley Library reading on evaluating trustworthy sources. For example, almost all of the authors have very humorous or lacking credentials following their name-- one showing as "Amateur Phlebotomist." The website also tends to show some very questionable advertisements that seem to be scams, which is also a common indication of a website's overall credibility. 

### Wikipedia Evaluation

The Wikipedia article on Joseph Reagle presents many inline citations, which is outlined in the [Verifiability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) page as an imperative feature of a reliable source. The first claim of Reagle having worked at the World Wide Web Consortium is attached to a reference that redirects to his [public page](https://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/), which provides a thorough description of his time and accomplishments there and prior (all with inline citations to those as well).

The second claim of Reagle's book *Good Faith Collaboration* being "bestselling" links to its own Wikipedia page on the book itself. In this linked article, there is thorough outline of its history, synopsis, and most importantly, reception. The reception section lists many individuals giving their thoughts and opinions on the it. Although the page doesn't directly describe the book to be "bestselling," it is very clear that the overall consensus on and attitudes toward the book are extremely positive. In addition both of these statements and the page as a whole maintain a neutral point of view, which is another aspect of a credible source according to Wikipedia's definition of verifiability. 

In terms of suggestions I would make to improve the page, I would advise (if possible) to include more established sources that aren't self-published, for Wikipedia's verifiability article cautions the extent of trustworthiness when it comes to someone using themselves as a source. I would also suggest adding more content to the initial summary of Reagle at the start of the article. This gives readers a much more thorough sense of the person and creates more transparency. As mentioned in Valenza's [Literacy Toolkit](https://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2016/11/26/truth-truthiness-triangulation-and-the-librarian-way-a-news-literacy-toolkit-for-a-post-truth-world/) article, author credentials in context are extremely useful. Lack of information can sometimes be seen as insufficient reasoning for true credibility. 

According to its history, this Wikipedia page on Joseph Reagle was **first** created  on August 1st, 2011 at 21:57. 
![](https://i.imgur.com/MFjMmrK.png)
