# Web Search and Evaluation

### Part 1 → Google Search
* Northeastern Wikipedia

I used the exact word or phrase category to make sure my findings did include both Northeastern and University, then made sure to specify the language as English, and the domain as wikipedia. Initially, I had trouble with entering the right domain. Every time I tried it with the www, or the https://, I'd get findings from every article on the internet about Northeastern, rather than just the Wikipedia mentions. Finally, using the url without the "www" worked to specify the number of results to about 4540 appearances of Northeastern Univesity on Wikipedia Pages.

* Skate Fish

To navigate finding Skate Fish, sans any results about ice rink, I typed the exact word and phrase of "skate fish," and made sure to specify that "ice rink" should be expunged from the results in order to narrow it down.

* Huskies 2001-2002

For finding a specific date range, rather than setting the dates in Advanced Search, you have to filter the results post search in a custom time frame that you outline. The way to do this is a button towards the top that says "Anytime," but if hovered over, reveals several date and time options, including "custom range." However, if you just do this, the top google result will be the current schedule of the Northeastern Huskies. If you specify in Advanced Search a date range from 2001-2002, you won't receive the timeline of the current season. You do still have to set the "custom range" in order to narrow down the search results.
#### Top Searched Pair of Penguins that are Free to Use, Share, or Modify (even commercially)!

### Part 2 → Web Credibility

The Conservative Review, owned by the Blaze Media LLC, is a self-proclaimed "collection of former conservative congressional staff, policy experts, activists, and media personalities." While seemingly harmless, this website is advertised to be a website where conservatives can receive an informed opinion before choosing which candidates they support, when in reality, they're a far-right political propoganda platform designed to sway the general masses towards the favor of Republicanism.

We see six categories of trustworthy internet sources outlined in "Evaluating Internet Sources," specifically:
1) Authority
2) Accuracy
3) Objectivity
4) Currency
5) Coverage
6) Appearance

Each rule of evaluating internet sources is blatantly broken, but people aren't attracted to the website because of the validity of their argument, but rather their outspoken political leanings. The most consistent "rule" broken is that of objectivity. As shown above in the embedded images, the Conservative Review prides themselves off of a unique concept called "the Liberty Score," which is essentially a rating of how often each politician alligns with conservative viewpoints. In this chart, the more conservative, the higher the rating. In and of itself, this website promotes being one-sided, and even argues that most esteemed and scholarly websites are actually created to fulfill a Leftist agenda, rather than inform the masses.

Closing yourself off to one-side of a political argument and being fully informed are two counterintuitive entitites, however, both are promoted on this platform. The combination is somewhat satirical, a shortcoming pointed out by Joyce Valenza. The importance of whether it fails to meet the standards of an informed source is null and void when it comes to the audience of the Conservative Review. Their minds are made up, and rather than gaining perspective on a political situation, they seek out validation for their own views, proving once and for all that the Conservative Review and every social media manifestion of their agenda is biased and deemed completely untrustworthy.

### Part 3 → Wikipedia Evaluation
1. World Wide Web Consortium
* This claim made on the Reagle Wiki Page is accompanied by a footnote that cites the WWWC's website, specifically Dr. Reagle's profile confirming that he was in fact a member of the WWWC.
3. Good Faith Collaboration
* After using "best selling" to describe Reagle's book, the contributor hyperlinked the title to the book's individual wikipedia page. However, the wikipage for the book does not once use the term "best-selling." This technically means that statement is unverified and needs some sort of proof if it were to stay up on the website (ex: more than 1 review, proof of copies sold, best selling lists, etc.).

The first claim (about the WWWC) made on the Reagle Wiki page was in fact verfiable and follows the website's guidelines, while the second claim fails to do the same. There is no proof that the book is best-selling, therefore the second claim should not be on the page at all.

**Date of Wikipage finding:**
August 1, 2011 by Tom Morris