Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [188]
These high-quality sites can best be found by tapping into scholarly web directories such as the ipl2 (www.ipl.org) and intute (www.intute.ac.uk) that work like mini search engines but are managed by humans who sift through the chaff, including in these directories only what they deem to be gems.
The student looking specifically for free, peer-reviewed journals original to the web can visit a highly specific directory called the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org), listing several hundred journals in a variety of subject areas. Many libraries have begun to link to these journals to promote their use by students and faculty.
Then there are the web treasures that compare to highbrow magazines or newspapers such as The New Yorker. Two celebrated examples are Salon.com (salon.com) and Slate (slate.com), both online literary reviews. Once tapped into, these sites do a good job of recommending other high-quality websites. Scholars are beginning to cite from these web-based publications just as they would from any print publication of long-standing reputation.
An excellent site for links to all kinds of interesting articles from journals and high level general interest magazine is Arts and Letters Daily.com (http://aldaily.com), sponsored by The Chronicle of Higher Education. You should also be aware of websites run by special interest organizations, such as the American Academy of Poets (http://poets.org), which offers bibliographic resources, interviews, reviews, and the like.
Wikipedia, Google, and Blogs
Three tools have in recent years dramatically altered the nature of web-based research. First and foremost, the search engine Google, through a proprietary search algorithm, has increased the relevance and value of search results. Relevance in Google is determined by text-matching techniques, while value is determined by a unique “PageRank” technology that places highest on the list those results that are most often linked to from other websites.
However, the determination of value is by no means fool-proof. Google’s ranking of value assesses less a website’s authoritativeness than its popular appeal. For example, a recent search on “marijuana” yielded as its second result (Wikipedia’s entry on marijuana is first) a private website promoting the use of marijuana and selling marijuana paraphernalia. This site could be useful in any number of ways in a research paper (i.e., as a primary resource reflecting public perceptions and use of marijuana in the United States). That it appears so high on the list suggests Google’s algorithm of popularity over authoritativeness. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just something to be aware of. It is a little like picking a pebble off the ground. Its value is not inherent: responsibility rests with the user to discover its value. Finding information in Google is never the challenge. Discerning appropriateness and authoritativeness is the bigger task.
High on the list of most search results in Google—if not first—is Wikipedia. Is this an authoritative source? Certainly, Wikipedia has revolutionized the way web pages are authored. The world is the author of every entry. That is the beauty and the hazard and the secret to its broad scope and thus to its popularity. Anyone can write and edit in Wikipedia. In this way, Wikipedia is infinitely democratic. All opinions count equally, for better or worse—while authority languishes. Consequently, Wikipedia is likely to contribute little to a scholarly research project. In fact, it could detract from an assertion of authority. In short, use Wikipedia entries judiciously. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia will be viewed by the informed reader as introductory, not as the hallmark of thorough research.
Just as Wikipedia invites all of us to be writers, so too do blogs. But unlike Wikipedia, blogs typically reveal the identity or at least the