This week, I read chapters six through nine of Verified by Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg, and I’d like to take some time to delve into my thoughts of each chapter.
Chapter 6
This chapter rehashed a lot of what I was already familiar with from being a psychology major. Not only is it important to know what sources are credible, peer reviewed, and accepted, it’s also crucial to be able to interpret the data and understand what the author is saying underneath the convoluted language. I am not an expert by any means, but I feel comfortable finding and reviewing potential sources. Using literature reviews as a way of finding sources has been pure gold for my research, especially if I know that the literature review was done by someone credible and was published somewhere reputable. I was not aware of the whole review process, and think that reviewers and editors should be paid! I could not believe that the peer review process is done by volunteers.
Chapter 7
Growing up, I was told that Wikipedia was basically the dark web. If I used it I would be laughed at, judged, and be guilty of a mortal writing sin. When I was in middle school, I had friends that would change the pages to something ridiculous for fun or have friends that used it and failed. I used it for general information if I was curious about something, but I never took it seriously. Now, I find it pretty helpful when starting my research or verifying another site. One thing that did throw me off was the claim that 70 percent of medical professionals consult Wikipedia for information (page 138 of Verified). Skeptical, I found the reference for that claim and traced it to the original study that revealed, yes, doctors consult Wikipedia on the regular. Mind blowing.
Chapter 8
I really enjoyed this chapter because of how applicable it is. I actually came across a ‘falsely implied date’ photo during the propaganda following hurricane Helene. It was a picture of some dogs leading cattle through a flooded, swimming. It was smartly captioned something along the lines of “Herd dogs doing more for their cows than the government does for us during hurricane Helene. “Turns out, the photo was actually taken WAY before, and was basically being used to rile up negative emotions. It is crucial to be careful when it comes to videos, quotes, and photos online. Who knows how they were tampered with! I really enjoyed this statement concerning patience while internet searching: “Remember that both the con-artist and the propagandist feed on the impatient” (Caulfield & Wineburg, pg. 164).
Chapter 9
While I was aware that ad-news was a thing, I was not aware of how slippery and hard to recognize it has become. The language that was presented in some of the examples was so cunning! Simply using the word ‘with’ to imply partnership/advertising blew my mind. I guess it shouldn’t, but it did. It is hard not to become super critical and skeptical of anything and everything you come across, especially on social media. It drives home the usefulness of the SIFT practice, and how taking some time to do the research really benefits in the long run.
Comments
One response to “Reflecting on Verified”
You’ve shared some great insights from these Verified chapters. It’s fascinating how our perceptions of sources like Wikipedia have evolved. It’s crazy to think that 70% of medical professionals use it. That definitely challenges the old stigma around it being unreliable. Your experience with the “falsely implied date” photo during hurricane Helene highlights the importance of context in our digital age. It’s a stark reminder that images and videos can be weaponized to manipulate emotions, which is something we all need to be cautious about. I completely relate to your feelings about ad-news, and that the subtlety of it can really catch you off guard. Overall, taking time to dig deeper pays off in the long run, especially in a world full of misinformation. Your reflections really emphasize the need for critical thinking in our research.