{"id":62,"date":"2017-02-10T04:46:23","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T04:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/tracking-the-source-of-viral-content\/"},"modified":"2020-03-17T19:52:36","modified_gmt":"2020-03-17T19:52:36","slug":"tracking-the-source-of-viral-content","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/chapter\/tracking-the-source-of-viral-content\/","title":{"raw":"Tracking the Source of Viral Content","rendered":"Tracking the Source of Viral Content"},"content":{"raw":"In the examples we\u2019ve seen so far, it\u2019s been straightforward to find the source of the content. The Blaze<\/em> story, for example, clearly links to the Daily Dot<\/em> piece so that anyone reading their summary is one click away from confirming it with the source. The New York Times<\/em> makes apparent that the syndicated content is from the Associated Press, <\/em>so checking\u00a0the credibility of the source is readily available to you.\n\nThis is good internet citizenship. Articles on the web that repurpose other information or artifacts should state their sources, and, if appropriate, link to them. This matters to creators, because they deserve credit for their work. But it also matters to readers who need to check the credibility of the original sources.\n\nUnfortunately, many people on the web are not good citizens. This is particularly true with material that spreads quickly as hundreds or thousands of people share it--so-called \"viral\" content.\n\nWhen that information travels around a network, people often fail to link it to sources, or hide them altogether. For example, here is an interesting claim that two million bikers are going to show up for President-elect Trump\u2019s inauguration. Whatever your political persuasion, that would be a pretty amazing thing to see.\n\nBut the source of the information,\u00a0Right Alerts Polls,\u00a0<\/em>is not linked.\n\n\"Article\n\nFigure 13<\/a>\n\nHere\u2019s where we show our first trick. Using the Chrome web browser, select the text \u201cRight Alerts Polls.\u201d Then right-click your mouse (control-click on a Mac), and choose the option to search Google<\/em> for the highlighted phrase.\n\n\"Screenshot\n\nFigure 14<\/a>\n\nYour computer will execute a search for \u201cRight Alerts Polls.\u201d (Remember this right-click\/control-click action--it\u2019s going to be the foundation of a lot of stuff we do.)\n\nTo find the story, add \u201cbikers\u201d to the end of the search:\n\n\"Google\n\nFigure 15<\/a>\n\nWe find our upstream article right at the top. Note that if you do not use Chrome, there are analogues of this method in other browsers as well. Right-clicking in Internet Explorer will allow you to search Bing<\/em>, for example. If you want, you can always do this the slightly longer way by going to Google<\/em> and typing in the search terms.\n\nSo are we done here? Have we found the source?\n\nNope. When we click through to the supposed source article, we find that this article doesn\u2019t tell us where the information is coming from either. However, it does have an extended quote from one of the \"Two Million Bikers\" organizers:\n\n\"Extended\n\nFigure 16<\/a>\n\nSo we just repeat our technique here, and select a bit of text from the quote and right-click\/control-click. Our goal is to figure out where this quote came from, and searching on this small but unique piece of it should bring it close to the top of the Google<\/em> results.\n\n\"Screenshot\n\nFigure 17<\/a>\n\nWhen we search this snippet of the quote, we see that there are dozens of articles covering this story, using the the same quote and sometimes even the same headline. But one of those results is the actual Facebook<\/em> page for the event, and if we want a sense of how many people are committing, then this is a place to start.\n\n\"Screenshot\n\nFigure 18<\/a>\n\nThis also introduces us to another helpful practice: when scanning search results, novices scan the titles. Pros scan the URLs beneath the titles, looking for clues as to which sources are best. (Be a pro!)\n\nSo we go to the \"Two Million Biker\"\u00a0Facebook<\/em> event page, and take a look. How close are they to getting two million bikers to commit to this?\n\n\"The\n\nFigure 19<\/a>\n\nWell...it looks like about 1,800. That\u2019s nothing to sneer at--organizing is hard, and people have lives to attend to. Getting people to give up time for political activity is tough. But it\u2019s pretty short of the \u201ctwo million bikers\u201d most of these articles were telling us were going to show up.\n\nWhen we get into how to rate articles on the DigiPo<\/em> site as true or false, likely or unlikely, we\u2019ll talk a bit about how to write up the evaluation of this claim. Our sense is the rating here is either \u201cMostly False\u201d or \u201cUnlikely\u201d--there are people planning to go, that\u2019s true, but the importance of the story was based around the scale of attendance, and all indications seem to be that attendance is shaping up to be about a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of what the other articles promised.\n\nImportantly, we would have learned none of this had we decided to evaluate the original page. We learned this by going upstream.\n\n ","rendered":"

In the examples we\u2019ve seen so far, it\u2019s been straightforward to find the source of the content. The Blaze<\/em> story, for example, clearly links to the Daily Dot<\/em> piece so that anyone reading their summary is one click away from confirming it with the source. The New York Times<\/em> makes apparent that the syndicated content is from the Associated Press, <\/em>so checking\u00a0the credibility of the source is readily available to you.<\/p>\n

This is good internet citizenship. Articles on the web that repurpose other information or artifacts should state their sources, and, if appropriate, link to them. This matters to creators, because they deserve credit for their work. But it also matters to readers who need to check the credibility of the original sources.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, many people on the web are not good citizens. This is particularly true with material that spreads quickly as hundreds or thousands of people share it–so-called “viral” content.<\/p>\n

When that information travels around a network, people often fail to link it to sources, or hide them altogether. For example, here is an interesting claim that two million bikers are going to show up for President-elect Trump\u2019s inauguration. Whatever your political persuasion, that would be a pretty amazing thing to see.<\/p>\n

But the source of the information,\u00a0Right Alerts Polls,\u00a0<\/em>is not linked.<\/p>\n

\"Article<\/p>\n

Figure 13<\/a><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where we show our first trick. Using the Chrome web browser, select the text \u201cRight Alerts Polls.\u201d Then right-click your mouse (control-click on a Mac), and choose the option to search Google<\/em> for the highlighted phrase.<\/p>\n

\"Screenshot<\/p>\n

Figure 14<\/a><\/p>\n

Your computer will execute a search for \u201cRight Alerts Polls.\u201d (Remember this right-click\/control-click action–it\u2019s going to be the foundation of a lot of stuff we do.)<\/p>\n

To find the story, add \u201cbikers\u201d to the end of the search:<\/p>\n

\"Google<\/p>\n

Figure 15<\/a><\/p>\n

We find our upstream article right at the top. Note that if you do not use Chrome, there are analogues of this method in other browsers as well. Right-clicking in Internet Explorer will allow you to search Bing<\/em>, for example. If you want, you can always do this the slightly longer way by going to Google<\/em> and typing in the search terms.<\/p>\n

So are we done here? Have we found the source?<\/p>\n

Nope. When we click through to the supposed source article, we find that this article doesn\u2019t tell us where the information is coming from either. However, it does have an extended quote from one of the “Two Million Bikers” organizers:<\/p>\n

\"Extended<\/p>\n

Figure 16<\/a><\/p>\n

So we just repeat our technique here, and select a bit of text from the quote and right-click\/control-click. Our goal is to figure out where this quote came from, and searching on this small but unique piece of it should bring it close to the top of the Google<\/em> results.<\/p>\n

\"Screenshot<\/p>\n

Figure 17<\/a><\/p>\n

When we search this snippet of the quote, we see that there are dozens of articles covering this story, using the the same quote and sometimes even the same headline. But one of those results is the actual Facebook<\/em> page for the event, and if we want a sense of how many people are committing, then this is a place to start.<\/p>\n

\"Screenshot<\/p>\n

Figure 18<\/a><\/p>\n

This also introduces us to another helpful practice: when scanning search results, novices scan the titles. Pros scan the URLs beneath the titles, looking for clues as to which sources are best. (Be a pro!)<\/p>\n

So we go to the “Two Million Biker”\u00a0Facebook<\/em> event page, and take a look. How close are they to getting two million bikers to commit to this?<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

Figure 19<\/a><\/p>\n

Well…it looks like about 1,800. That\u2019s nothing to sneer at–organizing is hard, and people have lives to attend to. Getting people to give up time for political activity is tough. But it\u2019s pretty short of the \u201ctwo million bikers\u201d most of these articles were telling us were going to show up.<\/p>\n

When we get into how to rate articles on the DigiPo<\/em> site as true or false, likely or unlikely, we\u2019ll talk a bit about how to write up the evaluation of this claim. Our sense is the rating here is either \u201cMostly False\u201d or \u201cUnlikely\u201d–there are people planning to go, that\u2019s true, but the importance of the story was based around the scale of attendance, and all indications seem to be that attendance is shaping up to be about a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of what the other articles promised.<\/p>\n

Importantly, we would have learned none of this had we decided to evaluate the original page. We learned this by going upstream.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-62","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":39,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/62","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/62\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/62\/revisions\/63"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/39"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/62\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=62"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/integrations.pressbooks.network\/webliteracy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=62"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}