Turns out the internet is full of lies đ
Did you know that you canât trust everything that someone posts online? In case you didnât, Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg are here to tell you why. In Chapter 1 of Verified, they explain that there are three kinds of context you should consider when taking in new information.
- The source (where did the information come from?)
- The claim (what do other sources say?)
- Yourself (what do you already know, why are you invested, and do you have any personal bias?).
The chapter goes on to give the acronym SIFT which can be used to verify if a claim or source is trustworthy. These translate to Stop (this is where you consider the context of you), Investigate the source (Ask where the information came from. Did it come from a talking tree? If so, you might want to verify with Google), Find other coverage (Google it), and Trace the claim/quote/media (what is the original source of this information?). If you can follow these simple steps, you wonât fall for any Keanu Reeves death hoaxes.
Xavierâs School for Gifted Youngsters, Clowns Anonymous, and other nonprofits
Chapter 2 of Verified explains that while money might not buy happiness, it can buy the ability to dupe others. Unless, of course, those others have read Verified. Some websites we might consider sketchy at first glance can be totally legitimate while some we would consider professional, might actually be funded by big oil companies that are in in mad dash for world and market domination.
Caulfield and Wineburg also explain that .coms and .orgs are both purchasable domains and one isnât inherently more trustworthy than the other.
Essentially this chapter just says, âHey, you canât trust appearances, the term nonprofit means nothing, so just follow the steps from the first chapter.”
It turns out that Google will *checks notes* show you results based on what you search?
Yes, you read that right. As technology can’t really read between the lines we need to be very clear when we give it instructions. Google searches are based on keywords meaning that the way you type a question can impact the results.
Also, you should know that the âsnippetsâ which pop up on Googleâs main page might not always give an accurate answer to the question you searched. Google spits out what it thinks is the right answer to your questions but that doesn’t mean it’s infallible.
Putting it all Together
Thereâs been a lot of reiteration throughout the chapters, something that seems very common in nonfiction books. The entire book can really be boiled down to the claim from the introduction that, “You should take at least minimal action to evaluate the sources and claims that flash across your screen.”(6) The rest of the content can be boiled down to, “This is the SIFT method and here is why you need it. I’ll give you five examples in two pages.”
Comments
3 responses to “Verified (no, I’m not talking about Gordon Ramsay’s Twitter account)”
I won’t lie, I clicked to read your post based on the title and I was not disappointed in the slightest with the way you went over the chapters of verified. I like that you focused in on the .org versus .com myth that the book debunks. The fact that you didn’t know there were such rumors amazes me since that feels like such an elementary rule that gets ingrained into your brain. I know in high school when I did research papers, I felt so guilty using .com websites while most everyone went to .org ones.
You are so right though about the third chapter though! I appreciated reading through the examples, but it did feel like that entire chapter was just explanation of a claim that doesn’t really need support. Like: what do you mean google is going to tell me answers based on the words I put into the search? It feels dumb looking at it from that perspective. There were few things in that chapter that felt like new information to me.
You’ve really wrapped up the end nicely. I can’t agree more that this book is just repetitive and really could be simplified as easily as you did.
Hello!
Your heading made me laugh–I love the little frowny face. But in all seriousness, you made some good points in your article. I’m a bit surprised you were never taught the .com/.org “rule,” but it’s a good thing to mention. Lots of folks are easily swayed by appearances, when in reality that’s the easiest thing to fabricate. I like that you touched on the book itself and not just the content within it; I also found these chapters a little repetitive and unnecessarily lengthy. It makes me curious if they introduce anything else new in the rest of the book, or if it’s just more drawn-out examples. Great article!
Hey! Fellow person who was never taught the .org/.com rule here. Don’t feel bad! I really admire your comedic tone here. I found that practicing the SIFT method in class allowed me to intake the value in each step, and also taught me the value of patience when looking into a headline or claim. I do agree that some of what was said about Google searching felt redundant, but I also believe that there are too many people out there that just do not understand how to communicate with any search engine effectively. That’s a real shame, as it’s not like the need for a search engine is going away soon, so knowing how to effectively and properly search for something is going to be an increasingly valuable tool. Solid work overall!