Verified by Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg has turned from a book that helps you verify webpages to a guide to verifying anything you see online. It has made me aware of how easy it is to be deceived online and reminded me to remain vigilant in the face of misinformation. There were 4 topics we discussed out of the book this week: Peer Review, Wikipedia, Video games, and Stealth Ads.
Peer review is a very important aspect to look for in any verification process because peer review separates the words of anybody and the words of experts, or it “separates rigorous research from mere opinion, hearsay, and the untutored opinions of your know-it-all roommate” (Caulfield & Wineburg 122). Well that is the goal. It is not an entirely perfect process, but it does the job. Look for peer reviewed papers as much more reputable sources for your professional and academic work.
Wikipedia is not bad! It is a very useful tool for initiating research. Wiki is a third source, meaning it is based on primary and secondary sources. To effectively use the wiki, all you have to do is click the links to the sources and use the Internet (or wiki) to research those sources. This is a very quick way to get a general understanding of the topic and what the reputation of your source is like.
Video games can fool anyone. Seeing really is believing, and videos on the Internet can misrepresent a video in such a way that you think you are seeing the truth when it is really not the truth. Before believing a video, always look for more context. This context can either be a longer version, the data associated with it, or just more general information describing what is going on. If the video is short, posted quickly, and has a lot of emotion around it, then odds are it is not the full story.
Stealth Ads are pesky, but if you know what to look for you won’t be deceived as often. Since regular ads don’t work, companies have started hiding ads in their news stories. There are often tells, like a “sponsored by” or “partnered with” logo in the top area of the page. Use your own judgement when reading these types of articles to see if the company is misrepresenting or if the message really does align with their morals and actions.
Have you ever been reading something online, questioned whether it was true or not, and then looked it up to find out it is labeled as a conspiracy theory? I think most people have, and our first instinct is often to immediately dismiss whatever we were originally reading as false and not think about it again. We hear someone is a conspiracy theorist and will chuckle and take everything they say with a grain of salt, if we listen at all. We might even consider them a little bit crazy. It is like they are almost in their own world with their beliefs, or on the other side of a fence, a fence that jumbles communication between those who are “normal” and those who are “conspiracy theorists”. As someone who would have considered themself a conspiracy theorist and seen both sides, I would like to offer some advice that will help anyone be a better communicator.
Demagoguery and The Power of Preconceptions – As soon as you hear that something is a conspiracy, or someone is a conspiracy theorist, don’t immediately dismiss it or them as false. Take it as an opportunity to potentially learn something new. Life is not so serious that we need to be “right” all the time. Open your mind, listen, ask questions, and try to understand why that belief exists in the first place. If you don’t learn anything at all, at least you better understand a misconception and could potentially help someone else re-find reality. What you will also do is break any preconceptions you had while bridging a gap between the in-group and out-group. Reducing demagoguery and understanding groups that you are not a part of will make you a much more effective communicator.
Comments
3 responses to “Week 9 – A Different Experience”
I love how you connect the dots between Verified and the importance of keeping an open mind when engaging with information, especially around conspiracy theories. You’re so right that it’s easy to write off ideas labeled as “conspiracy theories” without considering why people believe them in the first place. Approaching these topics with curiosity rather than judgment is always an incredible way to communicate in general. I’m glad you’re bringing it into other spaces!
I also appreciate the breakdown of the week’s topics! Peer review, Wikipedia as a research launchpad, and being cautious with video and stealth ads are all such practical tools for sifting through information. It’s interesting how video content especially can create that “seeing is believing” effect, which is even more reason to seek full context before forming conclusions.
Peer review as a process is complicated. I am really thankful that Verified covered the actual process so I can better understand what it does good and what is fails at. It’s a bit to easy to say, “its good and bad.” Why? What should I be on the look out for?
On your topic of being ready to accept something new, I think most people are scared of being proven wrong. So when they are presented with opposing facts, they dig a deeper hole. Sometimes, I really think what we need to do is, take a step back, and say “What am I looking at here?” then let ourselves be wrong (or right).
Wikipedia not being bad is great! Wikipedia not being the final resting place for researching certain topics is less great. That’s a joke, I swear. I’ve used it as a way to kickstart searches for sources many times. It’s normally the perfect white rabbit to lead me headfirst down a rabbit hole into the Wonderland of information. Getting something peer reviewed seems horrifying. I think having a team of experts rip into a topic that I care enough to write an article about would shatter my self-esteem.
I can often find myself dismissing someone who discusses “conspiracies.” I’ve found that this general closed-mindedness is to no one’s benefit. I have to assume that everyone I meet knows something that I don’t.