This exercise takes you step by step through the process of deconstructing a Web page in order to determine its credibility as a source of information.

Imagine that you come upon the this blog, which highlights ground-breaking research on the topic of pherotones – amazing ringtones that are the audio equivalent to pheromones. (Users appear more attractive to all those around who can hear the phone ring.)

This article is presented as being by Doctor Myra Vanderhood, who claims to have discovered "pherotones." As she puts it:

The pherotones.com website will be where I gather and reveal my scientific work unlocking the secret powers of Pherotones. But this blog is intended as an ongoing diary of the life of a scientist on the verge of a major breakthrough.

Are pherotones real? Is Doctor Vanderhood? Let's apply the Five W's of Cyberspace.

Who is Doctor Myra Vanderhood? Is information about the author and conference clearly stated or easy to access?

The profile on her Web site gives little useful information -- most importantly, there is no contact information given. However, a Meta-Web information search can be used to dig a little deeper.

Using the Vivisimo search engine, a search for the name "Myra Vanderhood" brings up over 1400 Web pages that refer to her.

From these results it becomes apparent that Myra Vanderhood is a controversial figure. Many of the references take her at face value, while others suggest she is a fraud or, indeed, entirely fictional.

What are you getting? Is the information biased? Does the site use loaded language or make broad, unsubstantiated claims? Can the information be verified through other sources?

Let's check out what Doctor Vanderhood has to say:

...here I stand, alone. A little Dane, with a wild idea to spread a message of love and hope across the globe.

...I could let the critics drown out my beautiful message to the world, or listen to my instincts and push on, sharing with the world my love on this most perfect of days.

Doctor Vanherood uses emotional language to persuade her audience and to create a sense that she is struggling against a scientific establishment that is trying to suppress her findings. She makes strong assertions, but does so using vague language and anonymous sources:

...The controversy swirling around me right now centers around one basic fact, a fact I do not dispute...I have only anecdotal evidence, and most of it is based on a lost weekend in Copenhagen.

...just got back from another trip to Denmark, and I am more convinced than ever that Pherotones are real.

... I know what I know.

It's important to note the information gaps in statements like these. This article contains an abundance of unsubstantiated, anecdotal information, but very little factual evidence to substantiate claims. Doctor Vanderhood repeatedly says she "knows" pherotones work, but offers no evidence might support her claims.

When was this article posted? Is it current? Has it been updated?

Although the "What's" are certainly enough to make you question the information on this Web page, let's follow through on the other W's, to see what we come up with.

Questions surrounding the currency of this information also bring up some interesting points. The entries on this blog range from December 2005 to February 2006. If Doctor Vanderhood and pherotones exist, it seems odd that the blog should just stop after three months.

Where is this Web page located? What's the nature of the site? Is it a personal home page? Is it part of a university or hospital site?

Where is this Web page located? The original page where we found this information was at http://pherotones.blogspot.com/. By paring this URL down to its domain name, www.blogspot.com, we are able to learn more about the nature of the Web site hosting this information.

We discover that "blogspot.com" is a service that hosts blog sites for free. They do not have any control over the content or judge whether their bloggers are legitimate authorities.

In her profile, Doctor Vanderhood claims to work for "Research Triangle Park" in North Carolina. Although no further information about Research Triangle Park is given, if it is any kind of academic or research institution it is odd that they would not have their own Web domain. (A domain ending in .edu would indicate a legitimate American university.)

 

 

Why would I use this site as a credible source of information? Can I verify the information I've found?

The question that remains to be asked, is WHY would we think this site is a credible source of information? In researching this topic, we've learned a number of things:

• First, the blog claims that Doctor Vanderhood has discovered "pherotones."
  
  
• Second, many sources suggest that Doctor Vanderhood is a fraud or is, herself, a hoax.

A bit more research turns up the truth: according to this article in the New York Times, "Doctor Vanderhood" is a fictional character created by a cell phone manufacturer. Despite the fairly obvious nature of the hoax, though, a surprising number of other bloggers and Internet commenters fell for it, or at least believed it enough to lend it credibility -- more evidence that when it comes to the Internet, it's not enough to rely on what other people think: you have to confirm things for yourself, and when in doubt, doubt!