While Rheingold’s article on information literacy and fact-checking credible sources promotes several good practices relevant for citizens in this digital age, I believe that an addendum should be added where even credible, reputable sources should be looked at under scrutiny. A few (in)famous examples include Andrew Wakefield’s RETRACTED 1998 paper in The Lancet which linked autism to MMR vaccination (which is great when discussing Scientific Methods), and more recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fiasco around hurricane Dorian. The aphorism of “don’t trust everything you see online” seems to be more important than ever.
As educators, we’re likely to have already created a happy little bubble from which we draw our ideas or practices from. Whether it’s a globally renowned site like Pintrest or more private channels like a fellow teacher’s course page, we’re always trying to find newer inspirations to toy with. However, one of the biggest concern is filtering the information to make sure it’s Credible:
- Purell Reduces Student Absenteeism
- “News websites” (once upon a happier time, we could cite this as a joke… now we worry if students know the difference…)
Filtering techniques such as checking the website’s reputation, statement of their purpose & goals, or red flags (such as biases) in their past publications are all solid choices. Other than individuals whose job or reputation relies on distributing 100% certified facts all the time (such as journalist, and maybe presidents?), the general public should not require in-depth “detective work” for every bit of information they come across online. Common sense and a healthy bit of skepticism is often more than enough. Often times, those individuals who are more invested in the topic or perhaps true professionals will shed light on any fake articles as they rigorously test them. Rheingold’s interview with Ito where she stated “those who contribute information online, show higher concerns about credibility” (Rheingold, 2012) resonated with me the most from the reading. The timing also coincides with a recent White House briefing where the doctor commented about needing the young generation to stay healthy because they bring forth innovations like speedrunning in video games. The fact that they can delve so deeply into the mechanics of a game and create conditions which borderline cheating, which the community will religiously and meticulously check against, is simply astounding (similar to the scientific community which examines replicability and validity of data). It’s a clear demonstration that they possess a much greater capacity to filter information, albeit limited to what they are interested in. The most important thing for educators, in my opinion, is to lead students towards transferring that sense of skepticism or investigative abilities from their interest area to a more global perspective. While it’s useful to introduce examples of reliable / unreliable sources and tools to students at the beginning, by the end of the course, they should be able to self-assess novel content and come up with their own filters.
References:
Rheingold, H., & Weeks, A. (2012). Net smart : How to thrive online. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca
I enjoyed reading through your thoughts on information literacy and fact checking. I really agree with the point you made about educators working at “leading students towards transferring their skepticism from interest areas to a more global perspective. “