The inter-webs have become an almost un-tamable web of truths, lies and ambiguous facts. To truly be able to navigate this wondrous place one must be able to separate fact from fiction. This is easily achieved by perceiving what is legitimate and what is not. Appearance: When one stumbles upon a website using a search engine such as Google or Yahoo they will find that the top ten results are probably not what they are looking for. This is probably due to poor word choices, but it can also be due to the sources not being legitimate. One can often tell a legitimate source by the appearance. This however is changing as the Internet grows. A few tell tale signs of an illegitimate source are organization, style and working links.
If you happen upon a website often the front page will look very nice. If you link from the main page deeper you will find that a legitimate site will have many sub pages and links to their sources embedded within their work. If the site is a legitimate journal you will also find those sources posted at the end of the article in a professional format.
Even if an article lists many sources you have to remember to check their sources and follow them a few tiers down the road. If a paper is based on bad information it doesn’t matter how authentic the authors intentions were, a bad source is a bad source.
Voice
One should be able to tell the voice of an educated professors writing from that of a town idiots rambling. On the Internet there is total freedom. Anyone is free to just spew whatever they want however they want from the deepest recesses of their minds. This does not mean that good writing form makes you a legitimate source of information.
Take, for example, the onion. It is a satire of news. The articles seem to be written in true form. They have links and cite sources, heck they even have a sweet Icon to represent their site. Yet they are not a legitimate source for information on anything happening in the world today.
A good counter example to this hilarious site is CNN.com. CNN is much like the onion because that is what the onion is trying to make fun of. Each article here is legitimate. You can tell this by the way the site is organized, the way the site feels and the amount or credible sources the site has in each article. Some of the articles are opinion, yet are still legitimate for use in a paper based on opinions not fact. If you are looking for statistics look in an article being written objectively not subjectively.
Opinion vs. Fact
Often when you run across a major site on the Internet you will find a plethora of authors. The New York Times is written much like a newspaper even though they have jumped on the cyber bandwagon. In any good news paper you will find opinions and facts, usually separated by sections of a newspaper. This however is the Internet.
You will often find it easy to determine if a source is opinion, but here are some red flags to tip you off to a good and factual source. The first is a chart or a graph. This is the definitive symbol of some sort of research. The next is a picture or video of some other part of the world the author is speaking of. This video may actually be a legitimate source itself…don’t sell YouTube videos short, they may come in handy. The next sign to look for is satire. When done correctly it can be very hard to tell if the source I actually serious about their topic or not. Often the last paragraph gives the authors true point away; try jumping to the end if you are unsure of the authors intent at the beginning.
The author
This semester many of us here at college took course about social studies and human interactions. I learned a lot about max Weber and Karl Marx. Reading about him and his theories on social status and inequality I found that he breaks authority down into three types:
1. Charismatic
2. Traditional
3. Legal
Charismatic legitimacy or authority gives the speaker the right to speak about religion. Traditional authority would be like a prince becoming a king, which we will skip, and legal authority which gives the government the right to rule and enforce laws. By using this authority we can make a pretty neat connection from authority to legitimacy. If you have the authority to speak about something chances are you are paid and educated in that area. This is the biggest criteria in my book for a legitimate source. If you aren’t a PHD at least prove to me somehow you know what you are talking about.
If the author is constantly referring to others to make their point, skip that author and go get the real deal. It’s better to go to the source rather than read a blog about a blog that touches on the source. This is why a source is called a source in the first place, it is the root of the fundamental knowledge, and if it isn’t it should contribute and further the first sources ideas or theories.
Conclusion
It’s a big world out there. It may be shrinking due to the Internet, but the amount of information is growing at an alarming rate. Everyday new sources become old and fact is proven to be fiction. Check up on your favorite factual sites you use everyday. Analyze them, chop them into little bits and look for any inconsistencies that may prove the site is drifting into either laziness or blurring fact with fiction.
Also take into consideration any media format. I discussed just literature on the Internet, but the webs are full of videos and pod-casts that are also legitimate. You have to analyze them the exact same way. Look and make sure you are watching a real person or listening to a true professor before you begin to regurgitate something less than fact in a paper. It will save you a grade, and often your reputation.
Byron’s authorial opinion
With every increasing amount of content on the Internet and the greater expansion of human thought and ideas the perception of “legitimate” has changed. The dictionary defines legitimate as: “according to law; lawful and in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.” The text also goes on to list synonyms which include: innocent, legal, licit, rightful, accepted, authentic, cogent, fair, genuine, just, lawful and proper. All of these things seem very noble and have an aura of chivalry about them. To me, it is saying that legitimate means to be in the honest and wholehearted truth of things. To rise above slants or viewpoints and overcome more instinctive judgments for truth. To be zealous in the search for accuracy but humble in the display of the findings. Legitimacy is the essence of truth distributed to all.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate
Grant’s opinion on bias
In any argument, credibility of sources is extremely important. However, people’s opinions can get in the way of information and distort its meaning. Take these examples of sources dealing with Barack Obama, for example. This page on Barack Obama’s official website tells of his life. While the information is accurate, it focuses on the more admiral parts of his life, and doesn’t mention his use of drugs like cocaine. On the opposite side of the spectrum is this website that clearly has a strong bias against Barack Obama. Take a look at the bolded words the editors of the website bolded in the article they are citing: Obama’s middle name is bolded, a tactic used by some to associate him with terrorists. Lastly, Wikipedia has a page on Barack Obama. It is filled with plenty of facts without opinionated comments or filtered information. If you were to write an article against Obama, using sweetness-light.com would undoubtedly give the impression to your readers that you were biased against Barack Obama, and would strongly weaken your argument. The same could be said if you were instead writing a positive article about Obama using his own campaign website. On the other hand, Wikipedia provides raw facts that have no spin on them from either side. When making an argument, it is essential that both sides of the issue are recognized and that opinions are backed up with facts from legitimate sources. For this reason, legitimacy of a source is dependent on an unbiased voice.
Matt’s take on legitimacy
Legitimacy is one of the most important issues in our world today. What we read we tend to believe and trust. What we believe and trust we base our decisions and actions on. So if we read something that is not legitimate our lives will be skewed. Obviously, we need some regulation on what is circulated and can impress peoples minds. Unfortunately there are two problems with this. One, freedom of speech. Two, there’s just no way that’s ever going to happen. The much more reasonable alternative is just to simply keep in mind what you are reading and who wrote it. When you are reading something go through it in your head to see if it makes sense. See if you can detect any biases or opinions in the author’s writing to make sure you realize that they are not necessarily fact. Also, if you see who the author is you might be able to predict what they would write about the topic you are about to read. If you can predict their biases coming in, it will be easier to sort them from the facts. One example is if you are on the FOX news website, you know it will be slanted to the right. The thing with legitimacy is that it can really be defined by a person’s perspective on things. Somebody might think an expert on a certain topic is the best expert in the world, while somebody else might think whatever they write is complete lies. None of us will have to worry about legitimacy as long as we keep an independent perspective and watchful eye of what we are reading.
