Embedded Files
One way to identify these organizations is that they don't generate new data or knowledge by conducting their own research. They gather and present data or knowledge that has been generated by people who are experts on the topics. This means we don't need to investigate whether these organizations are experts on the topic of (in our example) climate change. We need to investigate whether they're experts at providing information--and whether they're known for reporting fairly and accurately.
CONTENT DESTINATIONS (not the greatest for school research)
An information source would fall into this category if:
You can't find any clues that they have a main purpose other than providing information
Their Wikipedia page describes them as a resource that provides content or something like that
Some "content destinations" are for-profit and some are non-profit. Just being an organization that makes money when people come to the website for information doesn't automatically mean it's not a good information source. But there's definitely a wide range in the quality of these organizations' information.
It's not always easy to determine the quality of a content destination, which is one of the reasons they're NOT the greatest option for a school research assignment.
In this case, no news is good news:
There's nothing in the Wikipedia article about HowStuffWorks reporting inaccurately
The fact that it seems to be doing well as a business is also a good sign
NON-PROFIT PROVIDERS OF INFORMATION (need to investigate)
Being a non-profit organization, as this one is, doesn't necessarily mean they will be more reliable providers of information, just because they're not dependent on clicks to make money.
But, in this case, we can find some clues in the Wikipedia article that tell us this is a good option:
A number of other trusted organizations trust ProCon.org as a provider of information
If you're not familiar with some of the organizations mentioned, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, you could click on the Wikipedia links to find out more about them.
HOMEWORK CLICKBAIT (NOT for school research)
Some content destinations, on the other hand, could be considered "homework clickbait." These would NOT be good information sources for a school research project.
One sign that a content destination is not a good choice, as in this case:
It's impossible to find any clues about the organization responsible for it
Sometimes we have to look for clues about the people involved in an organization but, in this case:
It's impossible to find the names of any individuals responsible for the information
This is a sure sign this is NOT a good information source for a school research assignment.
EDUTAINMENT/INFOTAINMENT (need to investigate)
Some organizations fall into the "edutainment" category. This can include anything from a long-running show on a TV station (like this example) to a YouTube channel.
You could investigate the show or the station if you weren't already familiar with them. (BTW, you'd discover that the Nova show on PBS would be a good information source for a school research project about climate change.)
The challenge when investigating edutainment or "infotainment" organizations is to not confuse popularity with a reputation for reporting fairly and accurately.
This organization's YouTube channel is popular, but the investigation shouldn't stop there.
These clues tell us Kurzgesagt is a good information source for a school research assignment:
Although they received some criticism for not being credible enough, they admitted they had made mistakes and corrected them.
Almost every organization makes a mistake at some point. What matters is whether they do something about it.
Another category of professional information-providers is news outlets, but there's so much to investigate about them that they get their own page -->
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
The main thing to watch out for with organizations that just provide information is a reputation for not reporting fairly or accurately.
We've seen one example above of an organization that isn't necessarily providing inaccurate information--we just don't have any way of knowing whether they're doing a good job or not.
This organization, however, can be more thoroughly investigated.
It we only looked at their "About" page, it might seem that they're just providing information that doesn't misrepresent the truth.
They don't have a Wikipedia page, but they do have an entry on MediaBiasFactCheck.com, another useful resource for finding clues about information sources. Their compiled fact-checks indicate why they would NOT be a good information source for a school research assignment.
Return to the "Organizations' purposes" page -->
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse