Bricolage

When I read my post “It must be true, I saw it on the web” the thought occurred to me “where do you find information on how people verify the information that they gain from web sites?” A Google search was the first thought that came to mind. And I was not disappointed. Overwhelmed maybe, but I was started on the right track.

The Stanford University Web Credibility Project was among the first of the attention grabbing offerings. It had links to 79 papers on the topic. So perhaps one criterion is lots of referenced papers.

Another of the papers in the Google listing was Criteria for evaluation of Internet Information Resources by Alastair Smith, VUW Department of Library and Information Studies, New Zealand.  It was all text and had no pictures, not even a model. He provides a long checklist for librarians - his words: “a ‘toolbox’ of criteria that enable Internet information sources to be evaluated for use in libraries, e.g. for inclusion in resource guides, and helping users evaluate information found”

One of his criteria is “Is the resource interesting to look at? Do the visual effects enhance the resource, distract from the content, or substitute for content? If audio, video, virtual reality modeling, etc are used, are they appropriate to the purpose of the source?

“A related criteria to graphic design is navigational design, mentioned below in the context of browsability and organisation.”

He mustn’t rank it very highly if his own contribution is a benchmark.

Be wary of taking the next step on my journey - to Experience Festival. It may have a  high Google ranking, but it is full of ads and pop-ups, so I didn’t dig any deeper.

Safe browsing is one of my concerns, and that site didn’t meet my criteria.

Even with these criteria firmly in place there is still an indescribable element, that I think explains why people are still being duped by the widows of Nigerian oil company directors who need help to move money out of the country. It is a kinesthetic feeling. A gut reaction.

With this in mind, I compared what I could recall from the thousand or so books around my house, many of which I have read at least the back cover of.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs tells me all I need to know about pscyhology in 7 words.

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y is my one page guide to management.

Hertzberg’s Hygiene Factors can be used on any motivation question that Maslow or McGregor leave unanswered.

Arnold Mehrabian’s finding that only 8% of communication is dependant on the words used has helped me no end to identify faults in other people’s communication. This probably also means that my weblog posts are getting a little long.

So a quick synopsis in one paragraph, or even better a couple of words or phrases, has served me well so far. Even more so if there is a number that I can attach to it.

With this in mind, I have come up with an acronym:

R - References

I - Images

S - Safe - popups are an immediate discreditor. ads, don’t help much, either.

K - Kinesthetics, which my on-line dictionary defined as “The unconscious perception of movement and spatial orientation arising from stimuli within the body itself” OK it doesn’t quite match the meaning I wanted, but try finding another word that starts with K that does.

Y - for you. Past experience, personality profiles and inherent biases will filter what YOU find on the net. 

So yes, there is plenty of information on the web, but believing it could be R-I-S-K-Y.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm and is filed under Adult learning principles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.