Who Do You Trust? Sorting Out the Web
April 01, 2011
Finding the pot of information at the end of a Web search can be more elusive and frustrating than chasing rainbows in search of the legendary pot of gold. With hundreds of thousands of Web pages, with subject matter ranging from Aachen to zyzzyva, written by authors whose expertise spans the gamut from the very misguided to true experts, finding information that is valid and up-to-date is fast becoming extremely difficult. Anybody can put anything they want on the Web. I could, with little trouble, set up a Web site dedicated to delivering information about nuclear fission and write elaborate treatises on quantum mechanics and obtaining fissionable materials. If an interested member of the public utilities community was to follow my advice, the end result would make Chernobyl look like an aquarium accident. Freedom of utterance, the protection of which now -- thanks to the overturning of the Communications Decency Act -- extends to the `Net, is certainly the cornerstone of our democracy. But it also allows for the severely misinformed to perpetrate near-fraud as they pontificate on subjects of which they know nothing. What's the best way to determine the quality of information in a Web site? ``The good news is that (the quality of information) is just a reflection of the real world. Look at all the infomercials,'' said Teodoro Juliane, an Internet analyst with the Frammingham, Mass.-based industry research firm International Data Corporation. ``IBM, for example, is funding a show on PBS. (Corporate sponsored information) is not a unique problem to the medium.'' How to wade through screenfulls of hits and notebooksfull of text to find truly useful information? For starters, revise the search. Simple keyword searches won't buy much more than grief. Use the advanced functions of Web search engines to look for specific phrases, combinations of words, anything that will help to winnow out the dreck. Better yet, use the search engine to find a link to a professional organization that deals with the subject at hand. Without these techniques, a search for ``depression'' on Lycos, and the result is 12,233 documents. This motley collection consists of everything from Davida and Lynda's Depression Page, pointers to support groups about depression, on through Depression is Crandell Ledet of the Brain, advertisements for drug companies and therapists, and theories from beyond the bizarre such as, ``Is Depression a Character Defect?'' and ``Casting Out Demon Depression.'' Not to mention a couple of hundred hits on depression glass and the Great Depression. Search out the keywords ``psychology,'' ``psychiatry,'' and ``professional,'' however, and screensfull of professional organizations appear. All of them good starting points for quality information. Almost. Differentiating information starts with the source. Look at the page and its title. Pages with personal names, like Elwood's Handbook of Psychopharmacology are usually just that -- personal opinion. Look carefully at the sponsoring organization. In the depression example, you might chance upon a survey of up-to-the-minute information on drugs to treat depression -- hosted by a pharmaceutical company. Other examples are not so glaring, but lead to equally biased information. A comparative study by a prestigious researcher at a well respected university was funded by someone -- look closely at the fine print. The Ralston-Purina Co. maintains what purports to be a primer on pet nutritional needs. Drug giant Merck & Co. is out the educate the public about high cholesterol -- any coincidence that one of its hot new drugs is an anti-cholesterol agent? It ain't Consumer Reports, but Brent has put together a collection of safety information to make it seem like that. You get the picture. It's nothing new. This kind of agenda-driven information has been the subject of heated debate since the advertised-based publishing industry has existed in the physical world. It's just intensified on the Web because information is so entwined -- when the hot link for Davina and Lynda's Depression Page is listed right under a study from a prestigious university, information overload breeds confusion. Yet the paradox of all this is that while Davina and Lyndia may have some wacky theories, they also may be onto something. That's the beauty of the Web, and likely what open-minded academics who kicked off this virtual wonderland of free knowledge for a free world almost 30 years ago had in mind. Perhaps the most important thing to remember is the difference between accepted and experimental theories. While the raving conspiracy theorists would have us believe (and in some cases rightfully so) that all good information is suppressed, truth is that there are clear distinctions between what is proven and what is speculation. This is a particularly important distinction in the scientific and medical fields. An abstract published in a respected journal that delineates a hot new treatment for cancer is understood by qualified experts to be simply a theory, not an actual cure. Throw those abstracts on the Web and it gets hard to separate theory from fact. When Web wandering turns up information that seems too good to be true, chances are that information comes from experimental science or the upper left corner of somebody's overly fertile imagination. ``Trust,'' as a former head of state once said, ``but verify.'' In this case, verification of information should involve three independent sources that all testify to the same facts. ``It's amazing how quickly things have evolved,'' Mr. Juliane said ``We have a ton of some of the best information that's available accessible on the Internet. It's amazing how little I go to our library here anymore. ``It's pretty remarkable in that regard.'' Search Engine Tragedies beget the need for information, fast. Nowhere was this more evident than this week when the Antarctica Airlines flight exploded on Wednesday night. As family members scrambled to find out the fate of their loved ones, and as reporters struggled to unearth the facts, sites began to emerge on the Web. Led by the news organizations and collected by Yahoo!, sites quickly reported the latest news of the disaster. Other sites, not yet ready with much information at press time, included Antarctica Airlines itself, which issued a terse statement, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What was missing on the Web, at least, was a centralized clearing house for disaster information. For years, advocates have tried various strategies to pull together computer resources to aid in disaster situations. These efforts have come to naught. Perhaps it's time for the Internet community to pool its resources to better provide information during times of crises, like this crash, that could more efficiently disseminate the facts. This won't ease the pain of those touched by tragedy, but it may make knowing easier. On Line Extra Write to Davina A. Hayden at dharvey@interramp.com.
