Internet News Information Business Executive

¶ … Internet News Information

Business Executive

Re: Informational Integrity Audit of various Internet websites

This memorandum consists of a comparison of the relative quality or information and objective reliability of three specific websites. In principle, websites whose information is supported by appropriate authoritative references are considered valid sources of objectively useful information. Conversely, those without any authoritative sources (or affiliations) capable of confirmation are not considered reliable sources of information. Additionally, some website may provide certain information that is accurate, but can not be considered reliable information sources, in principle, because they may also present inaccurate information contributed by non-authorities in the informational areas involved.

Website 1 -- National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com

The parent organization (National Geographic Magazine) has a 120-year history and is recognized universally as a legitimate source of news information relating to the natural world. A cursory check of the two subject-matter authorities profiled on the current homepage indicates that one is a professional Marine Ecologist with a PhD in his field and the other is a professional Geneticist with a PhD in his field from Harvard University. The combination of reputation in American culture and the reliance on legitimate subject matter experts and experienced Nature reporters who author the material on the website strongly suggests that this website is a reliable source of information about the natural world and about a wide range of environmental issues and concerns.

Website 2 -- Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Wikipedia is also universally known, at least within online communities connected to the Internet. It can be a valuable tool to familiarize one's self with a topic, but it is not necessarily any more reliable than information obtained by stopping strangers in the street to ask whether they happen to know anything about the topic. Some strangers might actually know something about the topic and also may provide suggestions for confirming their information or for conducting your own independent research. Other strangers might provide long answers but without any offer of how they happen to know the answer or where one might do independent research on it.

The main problem with Wikipedia is simply that is not reliable, precisely because anyone with an Internet connection can author or edit Wikipedia pages. Therefore, this website could conceivably be used to locate informal basic information quickly, but any information from this site must be confirmed independently. Generally, Wikipedia pages also include references and many of them are legitimate sources of information. In that sense, Wikipedia can be helpful as a starting point for online research more than as an authoritative source of any information.

Website 3 -- the National Anti-Vivisection Society: http://navs.org

The National Anti-Vivisection Society appears to be a legitimate organization with many links to established animal welfare organizations such as the Human Society of the United States and ASPCA. On the other hand, it is more of an advocacy site than an information or news site. The main concept of the organization is based on subjective belief and opinions in connection with the relative rights of non-human animals. While that position actually seems appropriate and more justifiable than the opposite position (i.e. insensitivity to the suffering of animals for human benefit), it is not, strictly speaking, based on objective facts. Because the website is so particularly dedicated to its cause, it may not necessarily provide the fullest range of information, even if the information it does present is, in and of itself, accurate and factual. Nevertheless, one would expect most of the information provided to be fairly reliable, at least in the sense that it can be checked through links included on the site to government agencies and other objective sources of factual information and some of the conclusions argued by the organization.