Finding an (elusive) Author's name

 

One of the most popular (visited) pages on 21cif.com is our collection of Citation Wizards.

Each wizard (MLA, APA, Harvard, etc.) indicates information that is needed for a proper citation. One of these is the author's name. It is hardly any problem identifying an author's name in conventionally published sources. Self-published Internet sources are different. An author isn't required to leave his or her name; some prefer to leave just a first name or pseudonym. 

A 12-part tutorial helps students (and teachers) with tools and strategies for finding elusive author's names. No subscription is required. 

This tutorial package is paired with MicroModule: Author as a companion exercise.

Try it out! How many challenges can you complete?

Find the Author's Name

Tracking down an author's name online can be a tough assignment.

Let's say you want to reference a story about Polly the Polar Bear that you find here.

Who is the author? For this challenge, find the author's first and last name. It CAN be done, although it requires strategy and persistence.

Try the Challenge

If you give up, click the link to the Author Tutorials in the challenge.

Author Detective

Introducing the third revision in our series of Investigative Searching tutorials: AUTHOR.

No need to rely on the old Flash files any longer. There are 11 challenges in this set, from finding the name of an author to evaluating the author's credibility.

Get started here:  https://21cif.com/tutorials/evaluation/author/author-1

Satanize Me?

A report of a secret McDonald's menu is going around the Internet. I learned of it today thanks to this DIGG post:

McDonald's Has A Secret Menu And Other Facts link

Digg's source is Lucky Peach, where Lucas Peterson gives the details, along with photos, of secret menu items:

• Sausage Egg Big MacMuffin
• Mash Brown
• Blankets in a Blankets
• The McLuminati
• “Derrida-Style”
• General Ro’s Chicken
• Mommie Dearest
• The Burmese Python
• The Captain Nemo
• “Diorama-Style”
• Satanize Me!         

Short of walking in to your local McDonald's and asking for one of these menu variations (under your breath), how could you really know for sure if a secret menu does or does not exist? Maybe you don't mind if the counter person gives you a blank stare. Or laughs--I'm sure someone has already tried this.

After all, other fast food places have secret menus, why not McDonalds? 

One place to start is with the author. Lucas Peterson (If you want to make sure you get the right Lucas Peterson, include "Lucky Peach" in the query.) Top results are his Twitter page: https://twitter.com/lucaspeterson, another piece he wrote in Lucky Peace entitled, An Official Complaint Against Oriental Ramen, his LinkedIn page, where he lists his occupation as eater, Lucky Peach, LA Weekly, Serious Eats, Flaunt Magazine, Film/TV.  So we gather he is a public figure with an interest in food topics that can sometimes be humorous.

Another place to go is Lucky Peach. What kind of publication is this? From skimming results, it's a
"cult indie magazine founded by chef David Chang and writer Peter Meehan" [link] about all things food. It is a "quarterly journal of food and writing. each issue focuses on a single theme, and explores that theme through essays, art, photography, and recipes." [link]. The style of the magazine is ad-driven with loud cartoons and other attention-grabbing stuff. So an article about a secret menu fits in, although no claims are made whether it's true or not.

So, a writer that can be serious (at least at times) and a magazine that can be serious (at times) have paired up and released this story. Is this one of their not-serious moments?

The investigation returns to those customers who have tried this. They should be able to verify whether any of the creations bulleted above actually exist (I personally believe any McDonalds can deliver on Mash Brown). Where can you find these people, these witnesses?

Try Twitter.

A search for #secretmenu (guessing that's been used) turns up hits for secret menus submitted by members. Down the list is an entry by Lucky Peach with a picture of Sausage Egg Big MacMuffin, captioned: "We like to have a little fun sometimes, too!" Not quite definitive, but a sign the article is more fun than serious.

What other evidence can you find--without actually going in and muttering, "Satanize me?" (Note: I suggest not actually trying this. Keep in mind: McDonalds crew members read the Internet--they might actually comply-- in which case it doesn't have to be an official secret menu, but an underground one.)

Re-release of Author Tutorial

Another refreshed tutorial is now available on 21cif:  Author


Author is the first in our series of Evaluation tutorials. Earlier last month we re-released Publisher. In the coming weeks expect to see two more: Date Checking and Back Link Checking.

If you want to try the Author module in a non-flash format, we just completed a revision.

There are three sections to the tutorial:

Practice the skills: to help novices, there are some practice exercises that introduce methods to solve the challenges in the tutorial. These focus on fact checking queries, truncation and browsing.
Find the Author: four challenges of increasing difficulty to identify the author of a page or site.
Investigate the Author: using clues on the site and external sites to determine if the author has a good, poor or unknown reputation. There are three of these challenges.

Try it out!  Tutorials may be completed in as little as a few minutes by individuals or extended into a classroom activity if desired. The final page may be printed and turned in if you want to see how students fared.

Start the tutorial

Get Around Page Not Found

Web Site Investigator (WSI) is a collection of resources we deployed a couple years ago to engage young people in online evaluation techniques. It features six stories (some true, some not) that can be investigated using information fluency techniques to determine their credibility. I hadn't updated it in at least a year, so when a request arrived for students to evaluate WSI, it sounded like a good opportunity to see what needed to be refreshed.

The students' feedback was helpful and now the collection features only five stories -- one of them is no longer accessible. The main criticism about the site was the number of dead links. From what I can tell, the majority of the dead link reports relate to the Sellafield Zoo activity, not to WSI.

In fact, the intended investigative challenge of Sellafield Zoo is its dead links. I will add a note to that effect so students (and adults) don't conclude that the challenge is broken. The challenge is perfectly fine: find the name of the person who authored the Sellafield Zoo site.

The site is aging and there are parts of it that clearly have fallen into disrepair. See for yourself. (This is by the same author who wrote the British Stick Insect pages--those are even more challenging now to investigate).

The obvious name on the main page, Mr. Travis Beauchamps, is not the author. That name is probably made up. I have found two instances of the author's name on the site. The challenge is to find one of them in spite of "Page Not Found" error messages.

"Page Not Found" sounds like it would be a dead end. This isn't the case.

Try it out. Who is the author? Where did you find the name?

Leave your answers in the Comments.

Brainwave Challenge

A former colleague sent me an article on the neurological benefits of Internet searching that he thought I would find interesting.

I did, but for an unintended reason. It's not only good research to ponder, it's a search challenge.

Here's the link to the article, Exercise Your Brain Online. The second paragraph clearly states that the information is gleaned from a study of brain activity. What's not clear is who performed the study and that this is not a new study.  Only when you go in search of the original report do you find the research, the researcher and the fact that it is already a couple years old.

This is the type of challenge that often trips up students. They find only part of the information they need.

Here's the challenge: find the rest of the information--locate the original article, author(s) and date of publication.

Challenge #2: how would you cite it?


Leave your findings in the comments. But also take time to read the findings and use the information to make a case why information fluency is not just a 21st Century skill--it's good for the brain.

In Memoriam, Scott Swanson

Today Scott Swanson, a dear and brilliant colleague at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy passed away.  Scott graduated from IMSA back in 1990, and until recently, served on our Information Technology team.  Having battled lifelong health problems, he finally ran out of cures.

But he never ran out of friends. During his last days in the hospital he was constantly supported by family, alumni, staff and others who loved him.

One of the things I will remember about Scott is his uncanny and lightning quick digital information fluency.  I'm pretty sure it came easily to him. As part of the incoming student orientation, Scott would ask for a volunteer. After getting the victim's name, he would proceed to "stalk" them online. It was always a memorable event as Scott was able quickly to compile a profile based on information about the student gathered from the Web. Scott knew keywords and where to look. Students were often surprised (or shocked) at everything he found.

It was always a good lesson to be careful what you post.

In Scott's memory, I'm going to call this Swanson's Cyberstalking Technique. If you want to get and hold your students' attention using search skills, this is a guaranteed winner. Fortunately, many students today have an active Web presence, so it works pretty well. Google their name. Find their Facebook page. Look for keywords of interest and follow the clues.  There's usually a pretty big trail to follow. That's how I found Scott's picture, above.

This is pretty much the same thing one could do when evaluating an author. Thanks for the great example, Scott. We'll miss you dearly.

Tools for Evaluation

While browsing through library sites today, I came across a link to Human Cloning, The How To Page. The message on the library site (http://lib.nmsu.edu/staff/susabeck/checs98.html) offers the cloning page as an example why students should be taught to evaluate.

I wasn't familiar with the Cloning page or its author, Arthur Kerschen.  Not many sites link to Kerschen's pages (so using the link: command is not particularly useful). But good evidence can be found by browsing the site.

The challenge is for you (and your students) to determine whether this is a deliberate hoax or not and back it up find a page that supports your conclusion.

Something I'd like to create is a matrix of hoax sites and the techniques useful for investigating them. This is one example where browsing may be the most effective method.

Is Reading Believing?

Unfortunately for many students, reading is believing.

There could have been a time when information that appeared in print may have been trustworthy--thanks to editors and (hopefully) experts who reviewed it before it went to press--but that's no longer a safe assumption.

Because of the Internet, the reader has become the editor.

Before an evaluation can be made, one needs to know something about the author, publisher, references, or content; probably a combination of these things.

So here's an author challenge that's appropriate for students. Look at this blog: The Future is Green. The content is about sustainability, energy, the green movement, etc. But can the views expressed be believed? Knowing some facts about the author (and possibly checking out those facts) provides some perspective on the author's words.
Try this or have your students try it:

1. Locate the author's name (not hard)
2. Find information about the author (requires browsing)
3. Determine if the author knows what he is talking about, based on his experience, education, associations, accomplishments, etc.
4. Fact-check information about the author. Having another source (other than the author) confirm what the author says about himself is always a good idea.

So, should the author be believed? Why or why not?

Five Keys to Investigative Searching

When it comes right down to it, there aren't a lot of techniques involved in investigative searching. As opposed to speculative searching--what we tend to do most of the time--investigative searching involves clear clues and places to look for information about credibility.

In speculative searching, we're not sure where to look (Google is the default) and what keywords we need to retrieve the information we are looking for.

The goals of investigation are clear: find and evaluate the author, find and evaluate the publisher, find and interpret the meaning of the date, find evidence and evaluate it for accuracy, objectivity and external verification. You don't need to collect all this information unless the stakes for using information are high (like your job depends on it or you'll be punished if you plagiarize or violate fair use). Most of the time, checking a few facts is enough.

It may be helpful to think about investigative search techniques as depending on careful reading and four other keys. Nothing takes the place of reading thoughtfully. Still, the tendency of students is to go as fast as possible, thereby overlooking important information and clues about credibility. I'd say that's the biggest problem and why students trust false information.

The rest of the problem, as I see it, is that students aren't taught some basic techniques. These are the four keys I'm referring to:


Queries [Enter Key]

Using a search engine to track down missing information and check its credibility is the most powerful tool in the investigator’s kit. Depending on the information you need, the database you search will vary. For most queries, Google is preferred. But if you need to look up the registered owner of a website—to find the publisher or someone to contact—that requires a different database: whois.net. If you need to find a list of pages that link to the page you are investigating, then Yahoo is preferred, as it returns more information than Google with the link: command.

There are keyword queries, when you need to check the facts about a person, a publisher or something an author wrote in a web page. If you can’t find information to back up an author’s claim, that lends no support to its credibility. Sometimes, you’ll find that other people have information that contradicts the author you are investigating. This is all part of triangulating: finding information from multiple sources that agrees. When that happens, there’s a better chance the information can be trusted.

There are also string queries. This is when you copy a portion of text and search for the exact phrase in a database. You may place quotes around a passage, but it’s not necessary. Quotes work best around a first and last name or a short phrase. By searching for a string, you will often find other instances of the article or person you are investigating. The other instance may contain additional information you need. You may also discover that the passage you are investigating was plagiarized: copied word for word without being cited.


Truncation [Backspace]

The URL is an important source of information. It can reveal the publisher’s name or whether the site is self-published by the author. Truncation is a good way to navigate toward the root of the site you are investigating. Not all the information you need may be found on a web page, but a directory page may contain important clues such as an author’s name, a publisher or the date an article was written. You truncate by removing parts of the URL with the backspace or delete key, starting from the right and stopping when you reach a folder marker (/).


Browsing [Left Click]

Browsing is a special kind of reading: paying attention to hyperlinks. Normally when you browse you are looking for words or images that stand out. On a web page, browsing is defined by the links you click. Think of successful browsing as a game of HOT and COLD. You are trying to use links to get you closer to information you need, though you’re not exactly sure where that information is hiding. Whenever you click a link you have to scan or read the new page to discover whether you are getting hotter or colder. If you seem to be getting colder, go back and try a different link or technique. If you are getting hotter you will discover keywords and clues that you can use in your investigation.



Page Information [Right Click]

If you are using a browser that provides page information (Firefox does this) you can right-click on a web page to bring up a menu that includes Page Information. Depending on how the web page was coded, information about the last time the page was updated may be provided. If the last updated information is ‘now’ then the coding on the web page doesn’t allow this information to be shown. Knowing the last update of a page can be helpful in determining the age of the material.



This is obviously only an introduction to the techniques, but with them you should be able to solve this challenge:

Who is the author of the Sellafield Zoo? http://www.brookview.karoo.net/Sellafield_Zoo/

Challenge Level: Intermediate (Don't forget careful reading!)

Tracking down the Loose Ends

Does this ever happen to you? You've located a relevant resource that you want to cite, but when you look for the name of the author--or maybe the date of publication--it's not there. Now what do you do?

Without information about the author, you have to rely on the reputation of the publisher. Without the publication date, you risk using information that is no longer current. The standard style guidelines (APA, MLA, etc.) allow for citing works without an author and/or a date, but this is risky. You really should try to find the missing information to be sure your source and content is credible.

Investigative searching is your best bet to track down elusive information. Start with the page you want to cite. Scour it for clues. An author's name or date is not always at the top or bottom of the page. Like most crime scene investigations, you don't want to look elsewhere until you have to. Careful reading is required.

If the page you are on turns up nothing, then you have to expand your search. Now the url and links on the page become important. Try truncating the url to navigate to pages closer to the root of the site. In the process you may find a directory that lists articles, including the one you want, including author and/or date information. Links on the page may do the same thing. Don't leave the site unless you have to. Again, look carefully for clues.

Following links (browsing) is a particularly challenging form of searching. If you get more than one link beyond a place where you detected any relevance to your search, back up and try another promising path.

If the site has a search engine, try entering the name of the article or any significant keywords from it. You may be surprised to find other references to the article on the site.

If you reach the point where the site is no help at all, conduct a broader search using a major search engine (Yahoo, Google, etc.). Query the name of the article or significant keywords from it. Articles often appear in more than one location on the Internet. You could find reviews or references to your loose ends.

If you've tried these options and still don't have a name or a date, decide if you should cite the work without them. Is the information good enough to stand on its own? What would be the consequences if this information were false?

To test your skills at tracking down an elusive author, try this challenge:

5 Essential SEO Techniques (Article is halfway down the page)

Whom would you cite? Look for the answer in my next post!

If you'd like an opportunity to sharpen your investigative skills, a new section of Web Site Investigator (WSI) starts August 11. > More information