Beware the Pitfalls of Internet Research

My son once wrote an earnest elementary-school paper about alien visitors based completely on Internet research. (I hasten to add that I was out of town when this happened.) Before shrugging off his childish online trust, note that even adult readers and authors have been misled by online sources. Internet research is convenient -- with seemingly every publisher, research outfit and news organization offering digital access today -- but information-highway riders must be wary. Yes, you can type in a search phrase and scroll through a trove of information sources, but those search findings are a Pandora's Box. Consider Wikipedia, which often tops the list of online search results. Wikipedia is a great starting point, but it is not an online research bible; it is an "open source"encyclopedia where non-experts may edit articles and even insert inaccurate information. Also be aware that when popular community information sites (ask.com or WebMD, for example) collect articles from outside sources, they may unintentionally include unreliable data or data interpretations. And, hopefully, even a neophyte web surfer knows that a blog or social media post can be opinion without any basis in fact. So how do you find reliable online information? First of all, beware single-source, dated, excerpted and/or unattributed information. Remain skeptical of "scientific" findings based on unexplained methodology, culled from tiny or non-random samples, contradicted by many other reputable sources, or provided by clearly biased, self-serving entities. For suggestions on reliable online sources, including government, academic and publisher sites, start with the ehow article at http://www.ehow.com/how_6326469_do-good-internet-research-wikipedia.html. But I would add the following advice (despite the imagined groans of digital-agers): Try also visiting a brick-and-mortar building called a "library" that is full of original source material and reference works. Instead of just sniffing digital footprints, consider interviewing a recognized expert in person! 

When Wikipedia's Sexist Slip Showed in 2013

In case you didn't note it, Wikipedia had women trouble in 2013. It began when writer Amanda Filipacchi protested in an April New York Times op-ed piece that Wikipedia was quietly but systematically removing all women from the category "American novelists" and placing them in the subcategory of "American women novelists." Headlines and commentators decried Wikipedia's sexism, and many attributed bias to the fact that Wikipedia's cyberspace editors are 90% male. The issue also highlighted all kinds of Wikipedia ghettos, where women and racial or ethnic groups were assigned only to subcategories. Well, after the uproar, the women novelists are listed in the main American novelist category again, as well as in the American women novelist subcategory and whatever other subcategories Wikipedia pedants deem relevant, from mystery writers to lesbian writers to African-American women writers. This is a debate that many may dismiss as overly sensitive semantics about an effort to logically structure information. But I think it reflects real social challenges. When we collectively think about people by category, we can place real limits on how we treat them in education, in politics and even in personal relationships. We set different standards and expectations based on assumed generalized characteristics, and we may justify subtle or blatant discrimination based on stereotypes. Human "categories" have lead to oppression, genocide and war, and we need to be very careful of their use and implications. Wikipedia is just one mirror of how we think about each other; there are many other examples in our media, politics and private lives. We really do need to be vigilant and vocal when faced with distorted "categorizing." For more on the Wikipedia controversy, see http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/