When using data and information from the internet we are doing so called desk research and using the secondary data sources. As opposite to doing field research by which we can obtain so called primary data (for more detail about the research methods see the Module 3 Research phase).

To be able to better navigate students between different sources of information on the internet see our recommendations how to approach the most common secondary sources of data and information.

When looking for statistical data the best is to start with official statistics. On the international level statistics are provided by organizations like UN, OECD and Eurostat. On the national level there are statistical offices.[1]

These statistical databases should be considered as reliable. It means they should not distort the published data on purpose. But still we have to be aware of the possible limitations the data sets can have based on the methodology behind the data collection and definitions. This is quite beyond secondary school level, but as a teacher you should at least in your field of expertise understand possible limitations of the data presented in statistics (this would be mainly topic for geography teachers).

Do not mistaken the statistical data (in statistical databases) which can be perceived (if done methodologically correctly) as facts with analytical outcomes which are interpretation of these data/facts.

[1] Example for Czech republic: www.czso.cz

There are also non-governmental statistics published. In this cases we should be careful and investigate the sources and methodology behind the data published. Minimum requirement should be full transparency about the data sets (accessibility of the original data, not only the analytics).

As an (hopefully good) example could be Our World in Data[1] non-profit initiative done in collaborative effort with researchers at the University of Oxford. Actually they also present data about situation in world countries concerning the COVID-19 pandemic (see example).

[1] www.ourworldindata.org

Surveys are important source of information (and argumentation) concerning social phenomena (attitudes, political preferences, social behavior). About surveys we as users should be concerned with the reliability of the data, especially take into account:

• the methodology of the survey (sample size of respondents, method of contacting the respondents) has to be transparent:

-        surveys done by reliable agencies can be trusted

-        methodology of surveys done by other (not in principle reliable) subjects should be carefully investigated

• the sample size of respondents participating in the survey should be representative by:

-        number of respondents – this is concerned with confidential intervals of the findings presented (measure the degree of uncertainty or certainty of the findings)

-          but be aware that we actually do not need to big samples of respondents as for example for the whole national surveys (like election polls) the sample sizes being little over 1 000 respondents for 10 mil. population country

-        structure of respondents – it is crucial that the structure of respondents corresponds with the original population by main criteria (this will differ according the researched population but main characteristics usually are: age, education, gender etc.)

• methodology for acquiring respondents is crucial. There are more methods to be used but important to know is that when the respondents are acquired in limited environment (social niche) than the outcomes of the survey can represent only the views of this social group.

-        example are surveys at the newspapers sites (these are not reliable and can only represent, and mostly even not that, views of the readers of the particular newspaper)

We do not have to categorically discard surveys with not representative sample of respondents but we have to be careful with the interpretation of the findings. Mostly we can take such surveys as “first hints” that there might be “something” to formulate some hypothesis. But with acknowledgement that this hypothesis need to be further evaluated.

Official web pages of governmental agencies should be primary source of information about the official stance of the particular agency. As governmental agencies have their own (political) agenda they should on their web pages represent this agenda. Thus we should not misunderstand governmental agencies with representation of “truth” as they are mainly representing themselves.

Judge credibility of the information presented by news web pages is quite complicated. On one side we could and should distinguish news providing by intention and best possible effort reliable information and disinformation webs with primary intention to promote disinformation and fake-news with objective to influence public opinion.

Many news organizations are following internal quality protocols that should ensure validation of the presented information. Many journalists would argue that they are just objectively reporting. As we have learned about objectivity in the Module 0 we can see that this is not easy or virtually not possible. In this sense we would not mind to have opinionated media if they would be transparent and provide validated information corresponding to reality. The media and (especially we as their users!) should also distinguish between opinions and facts. But this is in reality of the media coverage not possible as media are mostly asking for opinion experts and politicians, so in fact are mostly filed with opinions. It is fine as far as we are aware of it.

Big question is balancing different opinions in the media. Simply said should we give space to all represented the society, should we give also space, let’s say to Hitler? This is truly not easy question and journalists often make mistake just asking questions (sometimes very bad questions) to experts/politicians without finding the real arguments by themselves and thus filing the media space with nonsense without giving it proper context. The genuine example is well documented deliberate and successful attempt to promote doubt in public about scientific research about impact of cigarettes on human health and man influence to climate mainly because journalists wanted to remain objective and give space to every “opinion”.[1] The problem is when evidence is confronted with PR promotion in the limited news space.    

We should be also aware that media are private profit bodies and one of their main objective is to make profit. There is nothing wrong about that but we can clearly see the consequences when new have to be attractive to make profit. Problematically thorough investigation and giving context is not as attractive as providing shocking and controversial opinions.

[1] You can find research papers concerning this issue or this topic was quite well adapted by BBC series How They Made Us Doubt Everything.

Is Wikipedia reliable source of information or should we disregard it completely as unreliable? Some think and many arguments would be that anyone can write on Wikipedia. Put it simply this is not true and Wikipedia has its procedures who can edit the articles. And procedures for corrections. But this does not mean that we can take the information provided on Wikipedia for granted. So how can we use Wikipedia? We suggest to use Wikipedia critically but it could be used (and suggested to students) as possible first starting point about the subject as Wikipedia often provide more points of view and most importantly links to other sources that can be and should be further explored.

As Wikipedia is widely used its content also in many cases represent the most generally used definitions and points of view. So we do not have to agree what is written in Wikipedia but we should be averse what is saying as many people would use this information as the “correct” one.

Social networks (mainly Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok) are today for students probably the primary source of information and means of communication for sharing opinions and information. On the other hand social networks are actually one of the least reliable source of information. This is for many reasons that are, we can say embedded in the social networks:

• only short information without context and deeper explanation is provided/shared

• algorithms of social networks enclose people in “social/filter bubbles”

-        “a filter bubble is kind of like your own little world where like-minded people echo each other. It's based on what you like, share, and engage with online and selectively shows you relevant information.“[1]

-        you will than receive primary (only) information that confirms your initial point of view

-        this strongly promote confirmation bias

• with social bubbles and direct marketing campaigns on social networks you have no idea (without deliberate action) about information that groups with different opinion receive

-        this information gap is absolutely crucial because of this phenomena we are not able to communicate any more with someone with different point of view as we do not basically understand their argumentation. As this argumentation s based on information we have never seen

• people are social and emotional beings and as research shows [2] more controversial and shocking news are spread much faster. Unfortunately fake-news and disinformation are designed to be controversial and shocking and to induce emotions and such are shared and spared faster (false news stories are 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true stories are) [3].

-        researchers from MIT: „we saw a different emotional profile for false news and true news…People respond to false news more with surprise and disgust“

-        researchers from MIT: „people can gain attention by being the first to share previously unknown (but possibly false) information“

-        disinformation is mostly disseminated by using specific manipulation techniques (see below)

• social networks play crucial role for teenagers and their status on social network (likes, followers) is directly reflected in their status among school mates. So students are actually forced by the social networks algorithms to share shocking, interesting and potentially false information as these are prone to get more likes and shares.

• for most teenagers influencers from social networks are their main role models and someone they believe and trust.

-        the only measurement of “quality” and “relevance” of the influencer is number of followers

-        influencers credibility can vary quite rapidly

-        many teenagers aspire to become famous on social networks and be influencers them self

• and there is much more, and still under research, concerning the impact of social networks on the cognitive functions and behavior

-        shortening the span and ability to concentrate

-        loosing ability to “entertain myself”, as teenagers and children express boredom if not connected to social networks or not entertained by someone or something (YouTube, Netflix etc.)

-        rise of social networks is being connected to rise in child’s suicides, obsessive behavior, anxiety and depression

[1] from: https://inoculation.science/

[2] See for examene study from MIT: On Twitter, false news travels faster than true stories

[3] MIT study: On Twitter, false news travels faster than true stories

For further sources you can search for your own. We can in this regard recommend quite accessible but still relevant documents about the role of social networks and their impact on teenagers as:

One practical tip concerning validity of the content presented on Facebook and Twitter. Official sites of government, news and other organization should be verified and marked by blue verification mark (see example for BBC News bellow): 

For YouTube and other video sharing sites apply the same as with social networks (see above). In this context we are more passive recipients of the content and the content we receive is based on our behavior on the sites and their algorism. Crucial is to recognize that the algorithm of site like YouTube is leading us into strong confirmation bias (see also Module 2) as they strongly promote to us only the video content with the same (one) point of view.

Internet sites in general represent point of view of the individual or organization that owns them. If any facts are presented or claimed we should use fact-checking and lateral reading (see below) to verify the information.

We should not in principle dismiss opinionated or some deliberate sites. Like many NGO´s are promoting some issue and way how it should be dealt with (as for example environmental agencies have quite strong missions). This does not necessary means that the information provided has to be false but we should asses the validity of the facts presented.

With fact-checking (see below) can help fact-checking sites which fact-check information and credibility of internet sites. In international and English speaking environment (American and Great Britain) are known these fact-checking sites:  Politifact, FactCheck.org and Snopes.

In each country there are national fact-checking site suitable for national context.

These fact-checking sites are considered as reliable but we still should remain critical and do not take everything they claim for granted. The fact-checking sites should definitely help with evident misinformation and disinformation sites. When it comes to controversial and “live” issues that could be supported by scientific findings the usage and explanatory potential of fact-checking sites could be limited.

In any way fact-checking sites should provide explanations and evidence for any claims they make about assessed information and organization/web site. This should be their job, theiy should help users with providing evidence for the fact-checking. Not claims. See also that many fact-checking sites are using scale as it might not be every time clear distinction between false and true[1]. This approach should be appreciated as it gives user more broader understanding about the evidence available.

[1] Snopes for example classifies in 12 categories. See their Fact Check Ratings scale.

Scientific journals are important source of data based on research which should (see comments below) be acquired through methods proven to be accurate. Scientific papers can be searched on the internet (use Google – precisely Google scholar). But unfortunately some of the journals have restricted access.