Google Internet Keep Safe Workshop 1: Detecting Lies and Staying True Instructor Handbook - Manual (Page 25)

(c) IKSC 2010 Copying allowed for incidental, classroom purposes. 21
Anyone can submit content to the website, which detracts even more from its credibility as we
can’t identify the visitors to the site and what their credentials are for the information that they
submit.
It is not clear when this website was created, but there is a discussion forum that seems to be
current.
The links lead to more information that doesn’t seem credible or reliable. None of the
documents are academic sources and their authenticity is questionable (they could have been
easily reproduced and altered). The news sources are more “entertaining” in nature rather
than based on scholarly research.
Some of the photos seem real (while their interpretations are strictly opinions) and some
photos seem to be digitally altered.
Conclusion: This source is biased and not very reliable.
2. http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/popular/’
It is very clear who is responsible for the site. This is a page of the official site for the NASA
Astrobiology Program, a respected and well-known entity for anything that has to do with
space explorations. The domain name matches the site and the domain extension is .gov,
which makes it clear that this is a government entity. The purpose of the site is clearly stated
in the “About this Site” page (top link at the left navigation panel): to give “accurate, up-to-
date, and comprehensive information…” The specific page gives opportunity for interested
people to ask questions and get a reply by experts in the field. Each entry is signed by the
expert who provided the answer. Google search on specific experts easily verifies their
credentials and expertise.
The tone of the experts in their replies is very factual and informative. They site facts and
data and keep their language objective (for example, “scientists are still debating whether
or not one of the meteorites… has fossil evidence of ancient life on Mars”). Even when they
are leaning towards one explanation, their language stays neutral (example: “There is also a
strong possibility…”) and non-conclusive (“recent observations…suggests…”, “The equation
suggests…”). They rely on data rather than on opinions, and suggest interpretations of that
data rather than impose them as fact.
All the information is presented in a balanced way and it doesn’t seem that they omit anything
on purpose in order to persuade one way or the other.
Each entry is dated, and there is also a date at the bottom of the page that shows when it was
last updated.
The answers are succinct, due to the nature of Q&A, but are informative and useful.
Sometimes links are provided for further elaboration and those lead to good information.
There are no photos on this page.
Conclusion: This source is objective and informative, although it does not discuss the subject
in depth. It can serve as a good place to start research on the topic.