Anabel Quan Haase wrote:

Dear John White, there is also a report on the Pew Internet and American Life Project's Web site: http://www.pewinternet.org (see under reports).

-- Anabel

I should have clarified my point. The current spate of reports about online health information, for example, criticizing much of what is available to consumers online, misses the point. Despite years of regulation, print media mailers, magazine adds, tv info-mercials, etc., continue to push marginal or downright fraudulent claims. The FDA has been unable to create a medication insert that the average American can read, interpret, and accurately represent possible effects. This is an example of one of the most heavily researched and verified pieces of information available to consumers. Thus, from my perspective, I find the discussion of "verifying" internet information to be somewhat misdirected. You use the same tools you are supposed to apply to any other media or source. I'm not convinced that the fact something is online makes this unique enough to require separate techniques/books/etc. In some ways, researching the veracity of sites/claims online is somewhat easier since you have a variety of tools available to examine the source and other commentary on its message. I am not a media scientist, so I may be entirely incorrect in saying we have no real basis for saying information from the internet is any worse, or for that matter, better, than what can be found in other more traditional media. The sole exception to this seems to be impermanence of the content. Is this enough to justify a separate standard of confidence? JW -- ========================================================================= John White, Ph.D. | O: 270.745.5867 Associate Professor | F: 270.745.4437 Dept. of Public Health | W: http://www.wku.edu/~whitejb Western Kentucky University | E: john.white@wku.edu =========================================================================