Google Search is a universal information search tool used by millions of people. Many scholars agree that Google Search is also a useful research tool (Miller and Record, 2017). But this tool has drawbacks and limitations, which should be considered when searching through Google Search. Moreover, awareness when using search engines is an indicator of Internet literacy, which is the key to successful work with information. This paper aims to explain why we should be careful when searching for information using Google Search, based on scholars’ views in epistemology.
Intellectual Virtues
The epistemological responsibility for working with information on the network lies both on service providers and Internet users. According to Heersmink (2018), students should have intellectual virtues helpful to work with any information. These virtues include curiosity, intellectual autonomy, intellectual humility, attentiveness, intellectual carefulness, intellectual thoroughness, open-mindedness, intellectual courage, and intellectual tenacity (Heersmink, 2018). In particular, curiosity presumes the cognitive ability to be genuinely and deeply interested in a subject. The ideal state of a given virtue manifests itself when curiosity exists for its own sake, regardless of the purpose of the search and subsequent work with information.
Further, intellectual autonomy assumes the ability to think independently, without being exposed to unwanted outside influences, and at the same time giving credit to authoritative sources. According to Heersmink (2018), intellectual humility describes the ability to fairly assess one’s cognitive capacities, which may differ depending on the area of interest. Then, attentiveness is associated with concentrating on the subject for a long time without losing sight of the problem’s thread. Intellectual carefulness is the ability to see factual errors or recognize false beliefs, avoiding ignorance while studying information.
Thoroughness is an intellectual virtue, implying an attentive attitude to information and a desire to study the subject deeply. Open-mindedness reflects the willingness to consider alternative views and a desire to revise one’s beliefs if better opinions are available. Intellectual courage is the antonym of conformism and demonstrates a person’s ability to strive for knowledge, despite the possible personal consequences. Finally, intellectual tenacity is persistence in learning and searching for an answer to the desired question. Besides, according to Heersmink (2018), there are intellectual vices opposite to intellectual virtues. At the same time, intellectual virtue is always a mean between two intellectual vices, such as open-mindedness, between formidability and naivety.
Google Search Reliability
Above were listed the qualities necessary for an Internet user to be responsible for quality information analysis. However, the responsibility also lies with the companies that provide Internet services, since work with search engines, particularly with Google Search, has many features implemented by this tool’s developers. The most important elements of working with Google Search are personalization services, ranking, and autocomplete or autosuggest. Personalization consists of search history, based on which Google Search ranks web pages resulting in a search engine results page (SERP) (Heersmink, 2018). To avoid the occurrence of an ‘informational bubble’ or confirmation bias, which may arise due to personalization, the user can disable this service in the browser settings. However, even with disabled personalization, users may face bias associated with the ranking of web pages, which in Google depends on how many links from third-party sites lead to the desired website. This approach may reflect the searched source’s popularity but does not guarantee its authority or reliability. Finally, autosuggestion can mislead the user or contain unethical information.
Search Providers and Epistemic Responsibility
Scientists Miller and Record (2017) complement Heersmink’s (2018) view and focus on search providers’ responsibility. Scholars believe that search providers should eliminate three categories of autosuggestions: those that result from organized attacks, perpetuate damaging stereotypes about socially disadvantaged groups, and libel specific individuals (Miller and Record, 2017). Scientists believe that scientific epistemology has many intersections with social-political science in the field of information ethics. Therefore, they cite many examples of unethical autosuggestions and insist on online search service providers’ responsibility.
In particular, Miller and Record (2017) identified three harms of irresponsible autosuggest. First, well-known people can become victims of this technology, whose honor can be hurt by disseminating offensive or false information. Second, autosuggestions that reflect search results or the opinions of a mass audience can propagate false, biased, or skewed beliefs. Third, the proliferation of false ideas makes it difficult to critically analyze the ideas and beliefs circulating in society, negating active citizens’ contributions who provide to audiences’ ethical development. Miller and Record (2017) note that the first harm is moral, and two others are epistemic, as they distort people’s knowledge. To avoid such distortions in the future, scholars propose to regulate three categories of autosuggestions mentioned above.
Simpson (2012) also believes that autosuggestions contribute to confirmation bias. The scientist offers criteria for evaluating search tools’ usefulness, including timeliness, authority prioritization, and objectivity. According to the scholar, personalization damages the objectivity of information; therefore, Simpson (2012) proposes recognizing the prima facie legitimacy of search engine providers’ regulation. The scholar believes that the ability to use the Internet for research and information retrieval is a public good that fails to be achieved, which is an argument in favor of regulation.
Thus, the difficulties that may arise for users when searching for information on the Internet were considered. Both users and service providers are responsible for the quality of information retrieval on the web. Users need to have intellectual virtues of being able to think critically and evaluate information. Search providers also bear epistemic responsibility associated with distorting the information through various search engine functions such as personalization, ranking, and autocomplete. These additional technical tools, which are part of most search engines, may damage information objectivity. Therefore, scientists propose to recognize the prima facie legitimacy of the regulation of search engine providers.
Analysis of Wikipedia Entry
When working with information, students should be careful when assessing the authority and reliability of sources. For such an assessment to be exhaustive, it is necessary to know the criteria that evaluate the information sources’ reliability. These criteria are the same for the analysis of any website, print publication, or word of mouth (Magnus, 2009). This paper aims to critically evaluate a claim from Wikipedia using criteria of authority, the plausibility of style, the plausibility of content, calibration, and sampling.
According to Magnus (2009), these criteria reflect how the user analyzes the information used in their research. The scientist notes that these criteria are much more challenging to apply to sources such as Wikipedia. Therefore, he recommends that users be careful with accepting claims made in Wikipedia entries as accurate, assessing Wikipedia as a source unreliable for authority. For wiki-entries, Magnus (2009) suggests to check the history of an entry and cross-check the entries with other sources.
An analysis of the following entry will be presented below: “Morrison made his first overseas trip as prime minister less than a week after acceding to the office. He visited the Indonesian capital of Jakarta for Australia – Indonesia Business Forum and met with President Joko Widodo, announcing a free trade deal between the two nations that had been negotiated under the preceding Turnbull Government.” This statement is only one line in a long wiki article about 30th Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison. As already mentioned, by default, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, as various anonymous users create their pieces.
It makes it challenging to evaluate wiki-articles in terms of plausibility of style, as various contributors try to harmonize their style with the article’s general encyclopedic style. The presented entry is written in a competent language, uses a formal manner, refers to an authoritative source ABC News, and demonstrates a high plausibility of style. The plausibility of content is also high since the information presented describes government members’ traditional occupations, and the message does not carry any internal contradictions.
Calibration of the message can be easily generated by comparing it with the rest of the article’s data. The presented entry relates to the general topic, agrees with the rest of the article in chronological order, and aligns with the current view that Australia has a relationship with Jakarta. The sampling results also give high confidence rates since the excerpt presented matches the ABC News source’s information. The only inconsistency can be that announcing a free trade deal between two nations is not indicated in the primary source. The source stated that Scott Morrison is planning a meeting with President Joko Widodo and that this meeting will focus on discussing economic relations between the countries. Therefore, sampling does not confirm the accuracy of the information presented.
Thus, a claim from Wikipedia was critically evaluated, applying Magnus’ criteria of authority, the plausibility of style, the plausibility of content, calibration, and sampling. Excerpt turned out to be reliable on four criteria but failed the sampling check since the primary source did not contain information regarding signing a trade agreement. Simultaneously, a claim showed a high level of reliability in terms of the plausibility of style, the plausibility of content, and calibration.
Reference List
Heersmink, R. (2018). ‘A virtue epistemology of the Internet: Search engines, intellectual virtues, and education’, Social Epistemology, 32(1), pp. 1–12.
Magnus, P. D. (2009). ‘On trusting Wikipedia’, Episteme, 6(1), pp. 74–90.
Miller, B. and Record, I. (2017). ‘Responsible epistemic technologies: A social-epistemological analysis of autocompleted web search’, New Media & Society, 19(12), pp. 1945–1963.
Simpson, T.W. (2012). ‘Evaluating Google as an epistemic tool’, Metaphilosophy, 43(4), pp. 426–445.