Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [189]
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 assumed identity of the author, and are written by a closed group of people, often one individual. As such, over time the identity and politics of the author(s) show through. In the best tradition of the World Wide Web, blogs have extended the sphere of publication, inviting everyone to be published authors, possibly achieving popularity and authority on a topic no matter how narrow by being at the right place at the right time, with access to the right information written in a voice of confidence. Blogs invite outside comment, but lack the formal structure of a peer review. As such, use blogs sparingly in academic research, being attentive to the credentials of the author(s), and to the wider acceptance of a particular blog in the scholarly community.
Asking the Right Questions
In the end, it is up to the individual user to evaluate each website independently. Here are some critical questions to consider:
Question: Who is the author?
Response: Check the website’s home page, probably near the bottom of the page.
Question: Is the author affiliated with any institution?
Response: Check the URL to see who sponsors the page.
Question: What are the author’s credentials?
Response: Check Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) to see if this person is published in scholarly journals or books.
Question: Has the information been