So I also did activity 2. My subjects were based on a poetry paper I received once. The student had chosen (from a selection I provided) "Tenebrae" by Denise Levertov. Two things to know about this poem: first, there is a headnote ("Fall of 1967"); second, there is some obvious war imagery in the poem. Now my hope was that the student would figure out that the poem was addressing the war in Vietnam; my Norton Anthology provided a footnote referring to the growing antiwar protest movement, but I decided not to pass it on. My hope was poorly founded. The paper began by asserting that the poem was about the Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt in June 1967. My immediate suspicion (later confirmed by the student) was that she called up Google and plunked in "war" and "1967", and seeing only references to the Six-Day War on the first page, decided that was it. In fact, as my research in this project revealed, not until page 6 is another war result turned up (Nigeria); not until page 7 does a Vietnam reference come up. So I gave her credit for realizing that the poem was about a war, and realizing that knowing which war would help her write the paper; I was dismayed that Vietnam was so far off her radar that she'd pick a war from early summer, in which the US was not involved, over the conflict that influenced most aspects of late-60s/early 70s American culture. For this activity, then, I looked for hits for war 1967, Levertov 1967, and Levertov War - the search she ran, and two others that she might have run.
For "war 1967" the top ten on Google include Wikipedia (no. 1), Amazon (no. 5) and several Jewish scholarly sites. Yahoo also placed Wikipedia first, Amazon sixth, and several of the same Jewish history sites; several new sites appeared, though: IMDB, for a 1967 war movie; palestinefacts.org; and peacefaq.com. Ask.com gave me mostly all new sites (no Wikipedia or Amazon in the top 10!) and a different IMDB movie.
"Levertov 1967" on google turned up a mix of biographies of the poet and listings for her book _Poems 1960-1967_. Amazon was no. 2, wikipedia was no. 6, and millikin.edu turned up as no. 5. This I found curious because Millikin is a small school in Decatur, IL that doesn't have any connection with Levertov I know of. It looks like a student posted a brief vita on the Millikin site; how it gets to be the no. 5 hit on google I have no idea. Yahoo placed amazon and wikipedia 1st and 2nd; Millikin didn't rate here. Again, all references were either to bios or the book. Ask.com was again a very different collection of sources, all referring to the book (no biographies at all). Amazon was no. 5.
"Levertov War" finally turned up some Vietnam hits. Three of Google's top ten made reference to her Vietnam-era protest writing, including no. 2 and 4. Also her Gulf War poem from Bush the first came up sixth. Mostly new sites here, though Millikin came back, and in fact appeared in the top ten on all three search engines this time. Yahoo again placed Wikipedia first, though some university and publishing sites were also on the list; only one referred specifically to Vietnam. Ask.com had three Vietnam hits (including 1 and 2) and three for the Gulf War.
Generally my research confirmed my comment on the student's paper: "Google is not always a reliable research tool," especially when you only look at the first page, and don't open up the hits. I recently used Google extensively for researching a project in another class, though I had already been through the library database system, knew exactly what I was looking for, and was willing to slog through dozens of search results pages to find what I wanted. Students looking for the quick fix by using search engines to do research may get some really skewed results. And Wikipedia is a frighteningly prominent source, and I don't think students understand it isn't reliable. Besides the recent revelations that corporations have tried to pay people to place positive references in their posts (cough Microsoft cough), there are the numerous entries that have been subverted by Colbert Nation fans (notably "bears" and "reality").
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do think that the biggest lesson that can be taught from this activity is that the internet is often an unreliable source, but there is certainly a value to that. I wonder if a formal writing assignment could be made that would begin with looking at three websites that all have the same subject (for example, since the 2008 presidential election is already underway, there are many sites that deal with various candidates). The essay would call for an evaluation of the websites in regards to their intended audience, how they are trying to reach that audience, and whether or not the information given on the site can be considered reliable. The paper could then go on to challenge the student as to what makes for a reliable website, and could expand to looking at the reliabily of any way in which we recieve information.
That sounds like a great assignment- Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman wrote about bias in traditional media, but there's no reason it can't extend to search engines as well. Analyzing results to think about audience and other motivations is very constructive. The internet may be the reference/communication tool of the future, but that doesn't mean we should trust it blindly.
I think it might also be instructive to include a very professionally designed website with all the trappings of "authority" that turns out to be a complete scam. One that I've come across recently is the HAVIDOL website:
http://www.havidol.com/
The site is a dead-on parody of any number of "real" drug sites, but the whole thing is really an art prank with no basis in reality. I think this type of site would be a useful addition to Darren's assignment because it reinforces just how difficult it can be to determine whether a source is "authoritative" or not. It might even lead into a discussion of the arbitrary nature of all power and authority, which would probably strike sparks in a freshman classroom.
Post a Comment