Authenticity of information and people online

Wikipedia - it's not the devil you think it is

“NetGeners” (Lorenzo 2007) are visual (as opposed to text-based) learners and are better able to process information and adapt to change. This doesn’t mean they are better at researching. They are “at sea, drowning in a pool of information, looking for life preservers”. We as librarians have always educated about where information resides, how to access and use it – and we are needed just as much now as ever. We need to equip students with information fluency skills (Lorenzo 2007) – combining information technology, information literacy and critical thinking skills. The trick is not so much information gathering, but making smart decisions based on that information.

Many educators used to (and some still do) shun Wikipedia (WP) – arguing that it is not credible or reliable. Studies have shown WP to be very accurate, on a par with Encyclopedia Britannica (Garfinkel2008). WP’s 7 million strong organic community ensures that incorrect information disappears quickly. Robots trawl for vandalism. Administrators and editors “clean up” incorrect, fraudulent or mischievous entries. Levels of articles exist – a Featured Article is one that has passed an official review and is verified by reliable sources and supported by citations.

Wikipedia is not taboo. It is a useful starting point for students when researching, but should be backed up with additional, verifiable sources. It is important, however, to teach our students that the instantly-gratifying results provided by Google/Wikipedia are no match for more complex library database searches.

HOT TEACHING TIP NUMBER 1  -  Use Wikipedia as a starting point for research. Many articles contain great information and they can also direct you to other valuable sources – links, articles, books etc that will provide further depth.

My Angle on MySpace Angles

What a joke! So what if people are trying to present themselves in the best possible way? Do they honestly expect people to post unflattering images of themselves? 

I could forgive the criticisers if the photos were photoshopped or manipulated, or if the person lied about a significant aspect of their profile, but we are talking about people who are just trying to present the best possible image of themselves online!

Yes, they may appear very different IRL, and yes it is narcissistic and perhaps those who engage are conforming to social trends but I think people are missing the point here - until you actually meet someone FtF, you should not expect to get a totally accurate idea of what they are REALLY like online - both physically and as a person. WHAT DID YOU REALLY EXPECT???

HOT TEACHING TIP NUMBER 2  -  Be realistic about what you see on the net. Take all content – images, comments, information – with a grain of salt and use your common sense for goodness sake!

References:
Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth. Technology Review, 111(6), 84-86. Retrieved 25/1/14 from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c47029b3-fccb-4f51-a677-192e9489554c%40sessionmgr4002&vid=2&hid=4204 

Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. (March). Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf

Sessions, L.F. (2009). “You looked better on MySpace”: Deception and authenticity on Web 2.0, First Monday, 14(7), 6 July. Retrieved 20/1/14 from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2539/2242