I received a request this week to investigate a web site that was viewing The Company in a rather negative light. The question-behind-the question was essentially, how much weight should we give this site?
The site was well put together, and as it turned out, providing correct information. Hell, they even provided citation information and links to supporting materials. But the site also offered a very one-sided perspective on the issues in question. In the fine print, the site itself even admitted to having a purpose that was somewhat axe grind-ey. And the authors/administrators of the site were poets, not legal experts nor did they present any credentials that would make them authoritative for commenting on the issues the site addressed.
I informed the requestor of all of this as well as the fact that the site doesn’t come up in the first hundred hits. So unless someone is looking for The Company’s name and uses some pretty specific topical search terms, the general consumer isn’t going to find this site easily if at all. Ergo, low threat. (As a total side note, the site will be a great example for the next time I have to teach a freshman information literacy course.)
The whole analysis took me maybe ten minutes, because I was trained (and train others) where to look for and how to judge whether information is credible. I assume everyone can do and can do it as quickly. But the fact that my colleague even asked the question maybe shows that this isn’t a skill everyone has or at the very least I can do it faster and more thorough. Maybe I take for granted that I can do this.
In any case, providing “bullshit detection” services is certainly another services and “added value” that embedded librarians can offer their clientele. We shouldn’t take it for granted and should actively market it during outreach.
No comments:
Post a Comment