How to Google Better

Google is designed to be a straightforward interface that quickly gets you to the information you want. However, it's worth your time to pause and consider the results page Google is providing to us. Using the search [ new york times ], we see we land on the following results page:

You may have heard that .com is bad and .org, .edu, and .gov are better. But that's an oversimplification: 

• Many respected news sites use .com
  • For example, nytimes.com
• Many nonprofits that engage in advocacy for one side or another use .org
  • For example, nra.org
• Most scholarly publications are not hosted on .edu
  • For example, stmarys-ca.edu mostly has information about the school, not scholarly articles
• The information on .gov websites may shift depending on who is in power
  • For example, a quarter of references to climate change were removed from government websites after the Trump administration took office

Instead of judging a website by how its URL ends, you'll need more sophisticated ideas, like those below. 

Unfortunately, there is no easy formula for determining whether a source is authoritative and credible. However, adding these four moves to your researching repertoire will help you sift through the sources you encounter. When evaluating a website's or author's claims or evidence, make sure you:

• Check for previous work: Look around to see if someone else has already fact-checked the claim, critiqued a thesis or evidence, or provided a synthesis of research.
• Go upstream to the source: Go “upstream” to the source of the claim. Most web content is not original. Get to the original sources to understand the trustworthiness of the information, evidence, or assertion.
• Read laterally: Once you get to the source of a claim, read what other people say about the source--its author, the reputation of the site it appears on, the timeliness of the information etc. Understanding the conversation about a site is vital to evaluating it.
• Circle back: If you get lost, hit dead ends, or find yourself going down an increasingly confusing rabbit hole, back up and start over with the knowledge that you've found. Making a fresh start with new information means you’re likely to take a more informed path, with different search terms and better decisions.

In addition to these moves, try to cultivate this mindset: stay self-critical, and check your emotions. Whether reading a Tweet or a news article, listening to a podcast, or watching a YouTube video, you'll come across ideas that excite or frustrate you. These are exciting moments as a researcher, because it tells you you've found something that engages you, but these moments can also be dangerous. Rather than taking a claim at face value--and then using it uncritically in a paper or, worse, sharing it on social media--STOP, and use the four techniques. 

Adapted from Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers by Mike Caulfield

The 5 Ws are like a rule of thumb: an easily remembered, rough guide for your thinking. However, when we say rough guide, take that seriously. Too often, people use guides like the 5 Ws like simple checklists, without developing the bigger-picture critical-thinking skills and dispositions like the four moves and mindset discussed above. These questions are the beginning of your analysis, not the end:

1. WHO: 

   • ​​Who wrote it?

   • Are they an expert in the subject? How do you know? 

   • Does the author have a reputation for a strong point of view on the topic? How might that shape your view of their argument?

2. WHAT:

   • ​​What argument is being made?

   • What evidence is used to support the argument? What are the sources of that evidence?

   • What evidence is being downplayed or ignored?

3. WHEN:

   • ​​When was it published? Is that recent enough for your purposes?

   • Have other articles or publications been written afterward that provide new/contradictory evidence or context?

4. WHERE:

   • ​​Where was it published? As in, what kind of publication or site is it?

   • What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the content go through editing or fact-checking? Does the publisher have a reputation for a political slant? 

5. WHY:

   • Why was it published? What were the goals behind publishing it?

   • What audience is the article trying to reach and why?

What other who, what, when, where, and why questions might you ask when evaluating a source for credibility?