Trying to find information on the internet is like trying to find good bands on MySpace. Occasionally, you’ll find something great, but you have to sift through a lot of crap first, and sometimes the best-looking pages are the ones least likely to provide something good.
Today in class, we looked at several websites and rated them for credibility. The first one, http://zapatopi.com/blackhelicopters/, was a detailed explanation of how microscopic black helicopters infiltrate the human skull to control our minds in preparation for the New World Order. It’s a professional-looking site. Clear and easy to read, with ads and a well-thought-out interface, it includes many visual aids that are clear and appear credible. It’s rather obvious to an intelligent adult that the whole thing is hogwash, but to someone without the filters that an intelligent adult has developed, it could make a scary amount of sense, as the ridiculousness of the message is disguised by the slickness of the packaging.

- Flow Chart of how Black Helicopters reproduce
Flow charts. They make everything look 29% more credible, until you realize it’s a flowchart on the reproduction of black helicopters.
This is one method of making a website look more credible than it should be. Great packaging.
Another way of being fooled into the credibility of a website is Google ranking. We looked at the google rankings when an individual types in ‘Martin Luther King Jr’, which would be a common search term for students. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the most commonly studied figures in secondary education.
And the number 5 search result on Google is this:
Martin Luther King-A True Historical Examination
Google is often erroneously regarded as an authority on information; people often forget that it does not rate information on accuracy; it rates sites based on the number of sites it links to, the number of sites that link to it, and paid advertising, among other things. The fact that this site is called www.martinlutherking.org makes it appear to be credible to students who have not yet developed the skills to evaluate and judge the crediblity of web sites, as well as contributing to its high ranking on Google, which also makes it appear more credible to the average student.
Wikipedia has an amazing breadth of knowledge and is mostly accurate, but the user-edited nature of the site does call its credibility into question. You simply can’t know how accurate something is without doing further research. However, Wikipedia can be a good springboard into further research, as Darren Crovitz and W. Scott Smoot point out in an article on Wikipedia in the classroom. “After introducing students to Wikipedia, teachers
might begin by using the site as an entry point into deeper and more creative research than typical assignments
require,” they point out, and this highlights the opportunity Wikipedia offers to teachers that counterbalances the weaknesses of the site. One can also use the references that accompany most Wikipedia articles as a way to judge its accuracy.