Hoax websites
The credibility of websites is something I have been teaching for many years. Several of the websites listed by Joyce Valenza are ones I have used in the past. Boilerplate the Victorian robot is a clever site which to most viewers is very well done. Using the CARDSS evaluation process, though, most students would be able to discredit the site. Paul Guinan is the creator of the site but the fact that his address is something called Bigredhair.com should call into the question of his credibility.As far as accuracy it is difficult to fault the internal references but most of the links can be traced back to the creator. Independent verification is lacking. Reliability lacks because a simple review of the creator's resume in robotics will show he is not a source of legitimate information - nor does he have credentials as a Victorian era historian. Guinan's self biography shows that his background is in graphic arts. Relevance is a little tricky because of the fact that the history of robotics is topical but the technology gap between what robots are capable of doing today as compared to the story of this supposed early robot show clear gaps in the feasibility of the claims. The original date of publication is 2000 with an update in 2011 -so it is an active and maintained site. The main source behind the Boilerplate is Robots of the Victorian Era page - created by the same author. The creator of the Robot does not pass examination - Archibald Campion is fictitious. A critical viewing of the content of the page and the material linked to the page shows the scope and purpose to be one of comic intent and a little bit of marketing thrown in. The site is intended to entertain not to inform of real events or people.
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/tr03butzhr.html
The second selection is not at all of comic value and in fact perpetuates a crime against humanity. It is a holocaust denial site. It is hosted/created by the Committee For Open Debate on the Holocaust and it's founder - one Bradley Smith. A search on Google makes it apparent that Smith's record of Holocaust denial is well known. The Accuracy of the claims made at the site are highly questionable. There is no legitimate mainstream historical source that lends creditability to the basis of the claims and it flies in the face of long established statistics and the historical record produced by decades of investigation. The lead article on the first page is posted by Arthur Butz whose credentials are that he is a associate professor of electrical engineering. His reliability is questionable as a historical researcher. As an example of revisionist history it is relevant as a thoroughly documented account of the holocaust it is dubious. Most 'facts' are cherry picked and presented in questionable context. The lead article is from 1993 but since this is a historical examination that is not an issue the remainder of he site appears to be active and up to date. The author of the site presents the site as one of fostering debate. The materials that support his claims seem to either be self generated or borrow from the Holocaust denial publishing industry. The scope and purpose of the site is to provoke a response from legitimate historians researching the holocaust and also to perpetuate antisemitism. Through a call for open debate the creator strives to gain legitimacy by baiting mainstream researchers into a debate on his dubious beliefs and facts.
Upon reflection the two examples of bogus/hoax websites reviewed here are on the opposite sides of the spectrum on false and misleading sources available on the general web. The comical Boilerplate website is fun and clever. The Revisionist is a very bleak example at best of the insidious nature of the web. In a wide open marketplace of ideas with no real gate keeping going on it is easy to float out the blatantly untrue and to seek legitimacy by trapping the reader under the pretext that a manufactured controversy is just as real as true history. Snopes does not list either page as a hoax. It does take a bit of prying to divine what the pages are really about. To the casual or less than cautious pages such as these can pass enough muster to be accepted as legit. Students tend to casual users so it is up to teachers to instill skepticism.
Acceptable Use
At RHS library staff are the coordinators of Acceptable Use Policy clearance. We maintain the files and process the paperwork submitted. It is a huge undertaking for a building of 2000 students. One of the things that I regularly do is orientate new students to the policies and procedures re AUP. I remind all students that they are being monitored and that they will be held accountable for their actions while in the school setting and using school equipment. Unfortunately this also makes me a key part of the Internet police forces at Rockford. Periodically I do have to revoke privileges because of misconduct. It is a fine line between promoting usage but also limiting the students access to insure that inappropriate usage does not occur. The Child Internet Protection Act is guidepost in our policy and procedures. Not every aspect of that law is compatible with concepts of the American Library Association Freedom to Read policies and as a member of the ALA I balance my professional code of ethics with the necessity to be CIPA compliant in the school setting.
Cyber Bullying
Awareness is always being taught on bullying of any nature at my school. I find that by paying attention in the library to the conversations of students that I can sometimes head off potential bullying. The library is a public space and students often forget there are adult staff members present. It is not policy to eavesdrop on students but when presented with a blatant violation of AUP (it does cover bullying online) we have to take action. I have found that special education students in particular find themselves involved in this as both victim and bully. They often lack the wherewithal to understand what their digital footprint is likely to reveal. I make it a practice to consult with those students early on when I see that they are drifting into trouble online. I also work with special ed. staff to make sure the message is getting out. Still, at least two times a year we have a case where either there is bullying going on or a student has made themselves vulnerable on the web. You can never assume that kids will get the message the first time or even the second. All too often it becomes a serial behavior and then we have to restrict use and limit access to computers.
No comments:
Post a Comment