Källkritik för Internet Källkritik för Internet

Conclusion and advice
Our report can be summarised using two
main points of view.
Seeking knowledge on the Internet – as
compared to previous methods – requires, on
the one hand, more scepticism. There are no
”hard” facts. There are no safe sources. Absolute
certainty cannot reign. On the other hand,
greater curiosity and openness to new possibilities
are promoted. We can give good reasons
for preferring one assertion to another.
Established and conventional ideas should be
questioned. There is always more to know.
Traditional methods of source analysis apply
equally to Internet as to other media. But the
special circumstances on the Net require a partially
different application. To conclude, we
give some advice below on source analysis for
Internet users. This is not a question of firm
rules, but of practical advice based on the experiences
previously described in the book.
First, you should conduct a thorough examination
based on two principles: source conditions
and features as well as world-view
and knowledge conceptions.
1. Source conditions and features.
a) Describe the source as broadly as possible:
What is it? How did it come into being?
Who are the people behind it? What procedures
underlie its supply of information
(how is information collected, selected and
checked)?
b) What is the source’s competence? Does it
have the capacity to provide correct information?
c) To what degree are new data integrated
with extant data? Can current definitions of
facts be discussed? If the source is a database:
are codes applied consistently or is there
evidence of variability?
d) Finally, what other problems might impair
the source?
2. World-view and knowledge conceptions
a) From what political, social, ethnic, cultural
and other context does the source originate?
Are there other sources with different
origins that give a contradictory picture of
the subject in question?
b) On what grounds does the source claim its
expertise? Are there other sources claiming
to have the same expertise, but on different
grounds? Are there other sources claiming
to have the same expertise on the same
grounds, but still providing different facts?
c) To what types of facts does the source refer?
Are there other sources claiming expertise
in the area but dealing with different facts?
Are there other sources claiming expertise
in the area and dealing with the same facts,
but still reaching different conclusions?
Then examine more closely the following
points:
1. Choose your search aids carefully.
Consider whether the person(s)/facility
recommending the website:
– is impartial or can be suspected of bias.
– has sufficient knowledge of the area in question
and/or access to adequate expertise.
– is dependent on others. If so, whom?
2. Identify the website you have chosen.
– Look at how the website is presented. Are
there formulations suggesting that the person(s)
behind the site are not really what
they claim to be? Be especially wary of
vague terms such as ”institute” and the like.
The fuzzier the designation, the more likely
that someone is trying to falsely upgrade
his/her status.
– Consider the web address. The extensions
”gov”, ”mil”, ”edu”, ”org”, ”com” or ”net” give
a good deal of credibility.
– You can possibly find out who owns the website
through, for example, www.press.nu.
147