Don't expect help in Infowars

Image Source: Fact Check Central

Yesterday's news about the subway attack in NYC is yet another example that you can't believe everything you read.

Read the article: When News Breaks, Google Still Can't Separate Rumor from Fact

The report, aside from being stockpiled with annoying full-page ads, points out that search algorithms designed to give people answers to their search questions still have a ways to go to filter out inaccuracies:

This trend has resulted in repeated embarrassment for Google, as its apparently authoritative answers have at times affirmed that the Earth is flat, women are evil, and four U.S. presidents had been members of the Ku Klux Klan (none of which are demonstrably true). It also once answered the query “is obama planning a coup” with information from a conspiracy site claiming that Obama was planning to seize power after his term came to an end.

There still is no substitute for personal responsibility as a (re)searcher. Gullibility lives in the fast lane of increasingly speedier computers, servers and results. Having no evaluation strategy is widespread: the democratization of irresponsibility.

There are plenty of ways to fix this. Start by understanding how to fact check.

Smurfing the Net

If Smurfs searched, what would you expect them to do?

Probably what the (stereo)typical student does: google a path to Wikipedia, snatch an answer and run.

That assessment may not be fair to all students, and probably not any student all the time, but it is what happens in the new Smurf movie.

I suppose this can be viewed a couple of ways:

1. Hollywood "got it right." Art imitating life.
2. Hollywood "missed an opportunity." The subduction of art.

Both views have merit. This is exactly what you'd expect from Smurfs (although it's the human in the movie who drives the search). This could have been an opportunity to set a good example to millions of students (for more on this, I suggest this blog: Why Do Smurfs Hate Information Literacy?)

Even if the movie makers missed an opportunity, it could be a good "bad" example to use in classrooms or library orientation. It can be very effective to have students evaluate questionable search behaviors. They can spot questionable search behaviors.

If you can't show a clip of the movie, students may remember it. Have them recall what happened in the movie. Then try the search. Sort through the irrelevant blue moon results. Go to Wikipedia. Have students "fact check" information they find there. Fact checking Wikipedia is always a good idea: can you find information that supports what is said in the big wiki?

If you want to use more of a search challenge, refine the question--always the key to better searching. Instead of just looking for 'blue moon,' look for this:

What makes the moon appear to be blue?

• Who can come up with an answer authored by a scientist?
• Who can come up with an explanation according to a smurf?

IE IQ Hoax

Too bad this study of IE users' IQ was already exposed as a hoax. It would have made a great challenge.

Here's the headline as it appeared yesterday in BBC News:

Internet Explorer story was bogus

A story which suggested that users of Internet Explorer have a lower IQ than people who chose other browsers appears to have been an elaborate hoax. A number of media organisations, including the BBC, reported on the research, put out by Canadian firm ApTiquant.

If you visit the Aptiquant website, you'll see this article: Tell-Tale signs that should have uncovered the hoax in less than 5 minutes! probably written by the author of the site. The list contains 8 points:

1. The domain was registered on July 14th 2011.
2. The test that was mentioned in the report, “Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (IV) test” is a copyrighted test and cannot be administered online.
3. The phone number listed on the report and the press release is the same listed on the press releases/whois of my other websites. A google search reveals this.
4. The address listed on the report does not exist.
5. I copy/pasted most of the material from “Central Test” and got lazy to even change the pictures.
6. The website is made in WordPress. Come on now!
7. I am sure, my haphazardly put together report had more than one grammatical mistakes.
8. There is a link to our website AtCheap.com in the footer.

These boil down to fact-checking information found on the site:

• A whois search of the domain name to find the owner, date (#1), telephone (#3), address (#4);
• A search for Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (#2) to see if it's available online;
• A string query to see if the material was copied from somewhere else online (#5);
• A close reading of the report to uncover spelling and grammatical mistakes (#7);

The other two (#6 and #8) aren't real obvious red flags. Lots of sites have ads and who cares much what software was used to create the site. I doubt if many searchers would have figured out #2 or attempted a string query to check on plagiarism (#5).

The quickest investigative method is definitely fact checking the domain. This yields the most information for further investigation, including the alleged author's name, which I haven't located yet on the AptiQuant site. A search for the author's name returns suspicious information that isn't conclusive but does make you wonder why someone like this would be involved in a study like that. I guess it's not surprising that questioning the author's credibility doesn't appear in the list of 8 above.

I didn't visit the site until after the hoax broke, and Google's cache doesn't go back before that, so I can't tell if information was removed from the site. For instance, information about the team is missing. If that was the case when the fake study first appeared, that too would have been a red flag.

In addition to the what the site author has said about obvious signs of the hoax, do you see others? Share your answers in the comments.