# Web Search and Evaluation

## Google Search

### Penguin Pair

* 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?
* To find this, I used the refined search methods of both putting the text Northeastern University in quotations and using site:wikipedia.org to refine the search to only sites from Wikipedia. My Search looked like this, and yiedled 10,700 results:


* 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.”)
* To find this, I used the exclude search feature and the exact words feature to exclude exactly "ice rink". This is what it looked like put together:

* What would you query to see web pages about the Northeastern Huskies from the first day of 2001 through the last day of 2002?
* for this search, I used the Tools section of Google search in order to input a date range of January 1st, 2001-December 31st, 2002. The search looked like this:


## Web Credibility
[Buzzfeed Article](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamfauzia/height-dating-apps)

I chose this article due to the bold claims of the title, *Height Obsession Is Everywhere On Dating Apps. Here’s What Experts Think About That.* Buzzfeed is quite an interesting source, and I would say as a whole is usually not the most credible. They have many different parts of their company, but a lot of their content focuses on social media reporting which can be seen as sensational and unimportant, as well as not having a backing in any credible sources as many of the claims in that realm come from tips, paparazzi, and rumors. As Valenza puts it, it's a content farm.

To determine the validity of this article, I used both the tips put forth by Valenza and Berkeley Library. First, Berkeley Library asks you as the reader to consider the authority, purpose, publication & format, relevance, date of publication, and documentation.

The two things that stood out making this source a bit suspicious were the publication and purpose. As I mentioned previously, Buzzfeed as a publication would not be a credible source in my opinion. As for purpose, many Buzzfeed articles are meant to add insight on current popular topics, which I think this article was aiming to do. However, this isn't always a driving force to create the most accurate content, which can create sources that have information that may not be completely reliable. While those two aspects made this article seem suspicious, the authority and documentation really supported it's credibility. Throughout the article, Fauzia referenced peer reviewed studies and linked them for easy access. This backed up her claims and allows readers to look further into them. She is also a "science, health, and wellness reporter" and has written for other publications in the past.

Additionally, I used the tips from Valenza of checking About Me pages and going to the source to confirm information in this article. Valenza provided a lot of useful information, much that will be more relevant in future research, that is easy to digest and implement into everyday practices. As she notes in the beginning, teaching journalistic and news literacy is so important for the generations of kids growing up with unlimited access to the internet. This was a part of my own education in middle and high school, but I even find myself getting relaxed on how far I investigate sources, so this was a nice refresher to have. Valenza's article will be a huge help to teachers in teaching these fundamentals to children that are growing up in a digital age.

## 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?
* (a) The page that is linked as the source to this claim is a personal web page, which Wikipedia:Verifiability classifies under a self-published, or questionable source. However, on this page, there are sources to prove the work that is being referenced is from credible sources (MIT, Harvard, W3C) which adds credibility and supports the work that is being referenced on this page.
* (b) In Wikipedia:Verifiability, they reference self-published sources as sources on themselves. In this case, I think that this might be the case in Good Faith Collaboration being linked as a source on Dr. Reagle. The claim that it was "bestselling" is less credible given that there was no source to confirm that it was on a bestsellers list at any point. However, this book can be verified that it was published by the MIT press on their website, which gives it as an achievement, much more credibility. In order to verify the claim of being a bestseller, I would link to where it was given that title from a reliable source.
* According to its history, when was this page first created?
* The page was first created on August 1, 2011 with a snide remark of "until Reagle is notable enough to merit his own article, may as well link him to the book".