Talk:Internet research

Paragraph added on search tool bias
Ok, ive added a paragraph mentioning search tool bias so kindly don't delete it without responding here. If we are going to mention the strengths of internet research, lets mention its weaknesses too. I'll get around to adding something about context and endorsements in time, since that is another significant feature of internet research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contextcounts (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Statements missing on some of the strengths and weaknesses to internet research
I'd like to contribute to this article but since im new at this, I'll write here. Im troubled that this page does succeed in defining internet searching (different from scientific and looking up a phone book entry) but says little of the strengths and weaknesses to internet research besides 1) access and 2) abundance.

Can we add something here about context, endorsements and search tool bias?

Internet research is distinct from book research in that typically more information is available about internet information than print information (such as context and endorsements) but that the value of these comments are less rigourously vetted.

Search tool bias arises from the tools we use to select the information we will actually view - as distinct from the matches recorded. A search engine, used in a blunt way, shows us prominent information first. Internet research that uses a search engine in a blunt way, can easily become biased towards the prominent answers and under-represent or completely avoid a position or conclusion that lacks prominence. This is a critical concern when researching contentious issues. Other search tools will bias results in different ways.

It seems to me adding more on the strengths and weaknesses would make this entry more fulfilling as an encyclopedia entry. Maybe there is something else we can add.

Reference is a book: Internet Informed: Guidance for the dedicated searcher. David Novak. The Spire Project 2008. Chapters one and two online at SpireProject.com

Comments?

Internet Research FAQ link at the bottom seems misdirected
It says as one of the references, Internet Research FAQ but that seems to link to a technical page on programming (http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Ask_an_Internet_Research_Question)

Was it intended to be the original Information Research FAQ ('97)? http://www.faqs.org/faqs/internet/info-research-faq/

Using the Internet or About the Internet?
Couldn't "internet research" be about using the internet to do research, or research about the internet itself? I think these are sufficiently different concepts to require at least a two-part article, if not a disambiguation page.

I fully agree. Please see the Association of Internet Researchers web site for an overview of Internet Research referring to the Internet as the subject of research. This includes things like ethnographic studies of virtual worlds, the blogosphere, etc. In fact, studies of Wikipedia would fit under this definition of Internet research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.172.118 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * perhaps, but using the internet to do research is just doing research in general terms.  the medium does not change the process.  special techniques like using search engines and the like, would be new pages.


 * I started this article with the thought that "just doing research" has been fundamentally changed by the Net and is therefore its own topic. I didn't mean formal scientific research, but I hadn't really thought about formal academic research that uses online means to contact people. This could be scientific research, but still more or less fits into the original idea of this article being about "everyday research". Using search engines to do research is a topic on its own, but is only one aspect. Checking out forums (message boards) and emailing people are two significant other methods distinct from search engines. The most obvious common factor shared by all methods seems to be speed, how quickly results can be obtained. Tsavage 03:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article currently states:
 * It should be distinguished from scientific research - research following a defined and rigorous process - that is carried out on the Internet, also from straightforward finding of specific info, like locating a name or phone number (and it does not refer to, research about the Internet).

This sentence is misleading because the term Internet research is indeed used to refer to scientific research, e.g. The Journal of Medical Internet Research, and it can be used to refer to Internet studies—research about the internet itself, e.g. The Association of Internet Researchers. There definitely should be some form of disambiguation here. --Dforest 01:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

For now, I added a disambiguation link:

This article is about using the Internet for research; for the field of research about the Internet, see Internet studies.

--Dforest 01:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed sections and phrases
I removed the parenthetical (no matter how trivial-seeming the subject) because it would appear irrelevent to defining what research is. Additionally, I removed this vague paragraph opener:


 * The Internet also presents an alternate body of knowledge to the traditional print library resources, because much of the content is different. Internet resources have similar (or "the same") information as print sources, but they generally do not simply reproduce print content. Although books are nowadays produced using a digital version of the content, for most books such a version is not available on the Internet. On the other hand,

replacing it with simply It should be noted that. Finally, this "questions" section, while well thought-out, unfortunately has no place on Wikipedia:
 * What is the scope and quality of online information? (e.g. On a practical level, given a range of everyday subjects, what is the difference between the available info found by visiting a fair-sized library, and on the Web?)
 * Trusted sources: how can sources, like individual Web sites, and specific info be vetted? (eg. Wikipedia)
 * What effect does keyword searching (combined with instant access) have on the way topics are defined and information located?
 * What is the impact of search engine algorithms for determining relevance (which pages are returned in what order)? What about the presence of sponsored (for a fee) results that are prioritized? What about unannounced manipulation of search results to put certain results forward (e.g. optimizing Web pages to produce better search result rankings)?
 * Facts and figures: What percentage of "essential" texts are available online? What materials are available only online (eg: full text of out-of-print books)? How has the (non-fiction) print publishing business been affected by the Net?
 * How have people's active research habits been changed (seeking specific info, vs passive "research" from, for example, current media and casual conversation)?
 * What effect is the availability of Internet research having on regular people (not students, professional researchers, etc) - are people feeling more empowered? Putting more thought into things? Is the level of expectation for factual presentations (eg: the nightly news) affected?
 * Is the relative impermanence of a "link" as a source particularly relevant on any level (for example, a referenced book may be made unavailable, but presumably a copy exists somewhere, and can be located, whereas if a web site vanishes, it may be next to impossible to locate it again; in some cases, the link/site may be like the only existing copy of a book...)?

If you feel any of these should be re-inserted, please argue for doing so here first. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 14:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Methadology"
I removed this "methadology" section due to its vagueness:

There are a number of research methodologies and theoretical approaches that are recommended for Internet Research including:
 * Visual ethnography.
 * Content analysis.
 * Discourse analysis.
 * Statistical sampling.
 * Survey research.
 * Action research.
 * Marxist approaches.
 * Habermasian (public sphere approaches).
 * Feminist research.

... particularly in the blurring of political and scientific themes. It's not really clear who's doing the "reccomending" here, either. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 14:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New section on search tools
I have added a section on the most popular search tools used for Internet research. It is an important part of the topic, so please don't remove it without responding here. I also plan to eventually add a section on Internet research strategies, another critical area that should be covered. --Mkt gal (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
The only way I could demonstrate that Halavais does not act in good faith was to delete the reference to a paper by one of his cronies at AoIR.

--(# ^ Hargittai, E. (2002). “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills”. In First Monday, April 2002, 7 (4). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_4/hargittai/)

I knew that as soon as he saw that I had done so, he would immediately "undo" the delete. I knew he would do it blindly without checking the reference. I was not disappointed. He acted precisely as I suspected.

'''The link is broken "the server cannot be found". Halavais is so biased that he cannot resist posting bad information just to oppose me and to elevate his cronies at AoIR. ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.87.10 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you (a) knew that one of our references had a bad/outdated link and didn't fix it or say anything and (b) deleted it to prove a point? Bad call.  And labeling the reversion of your vandalism as supporting an AoIR crony is completely unacceptable, both in your blatant assumption of bad faith and your slander of a well-respected researcher (who is well-known outside of that one organization).
 * I renew my request that you voluntarily leave this article completely alone as you can't seem to edit it in good-faith. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with everything you have said and I reject your advice.


 * I removed a broken link (bad information) and Halavais restored it (uncorrected). You cannot dispute this! His action after that is a predictable bonus. Show me where it say's that removing bad information and not replacing it with good information is acting in bad faith? If removing bad information is vandalism, no matter what other motives may be afoot, then I plead guilty. I refuse to assume good faith when there is none, to do otherwise is stupidity. IMHO it is not prudent to assume good faith and trust a self-confessed Wikipedia vandal. I have merely proved the wisdom of that logic.


 * So, what is the motive, intent, or explanation for restoring bad information? Isn't restoring bad information the same as posting bad information, if not what is the difference? Why would this "highly respected Internet scholar" fail to verify the information he was restoring. What do you call that? Some terms come to mind but they would be more hostile than "lack of neutrality" or "bad faith".


 * You are perilously close to exposing your lack of neutrality and making me a sympathetic character as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wreid (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All feelings of persecution by peer-reviewed articles and their authors aside, the appropriate reaction to link rot on Wikipedia is detailed here. In particular "Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available." Best practice is to apply the Template:Cleanup-link_rot. Also important to leave an edit summary, especially when deleting text. Thanks for improving the article, since I'm sure that was an aim in there somewhere... -- Halavais (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The condescending remark about "peer review" is not helpful and supports my theory. Besides, it's only a "feeling" of persecution if there is no evidence to support the feeling. Unfortunately you are far too predictable.


 * IMHO Ezter's paper is excellent, but dated, and should not be replaced; but I am not going to fight that fight. I think the discussions of both Internet research and studies should be re-written but I don't think there is good faith afoot, so I'm not comfortable investing the time. You know we could surprise everybody and collaborate on a rewrite. I'm willing to try. Wreid (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tracing Monash Library link...
Monash restructured their library, so the link at the bottom of the page has gone missing from their links on their website as well. Archives.org can't help. I've left a note on their website error form, but if nothing returns, I'll drop the link. Contextcounts (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Gary, an Admin at Monash Library, confirmed by email that this Monash guide is gone for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.112.183 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Trepidation but i'll try.
Yes, its my book. Yes, i'm the author. Yes, i suppose there is some promotional intent. Having said that, the book is in the creative commons. It is detailed. It is 5 years old. My links have been here before (FAQ, SpireProject). And we did lose the reference from Monash. Before you revert the link, consider the link on its own merits. All i ask. David Contextcounts (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First change: complete rewrite of first section.
January 2013: This is a C-class article and it has not changed much in the last five to ten years. I'm going to try to improve this with balance and depth - particularly in discussing the strengths and weaknesses and unique features of internet research.

First point - first line: This is also Google's defacto definition for internet research by the way. "Internet research is the practice of using the Internet, especially the World Wide Web, for research." I see this as either a tautology, or just a little wrong. We can retrieve almost any research through the internet. That does not make it internet research. We can search Dialog databases through the internet. All we need is an account and a credit-card. No-one suggests searching such commercial databases is internet research, yet searching Medline or LOCOC most certainly is.

I've replace this with: "Internet research is the practice of using internet information, especially free information on the World Wide Web, in research. It is: focused and purposeful (so not recreational browsing), uses internet information or internet-based resources (like internet discussion lists), immediate (drawing answers from information you can access without delay) and tends to access information without a purchase price."

Remember this line will become a defacto definition - I'm breaking it away from a catch-all phrase without meaning to something distinct from commercial or library or scientific research. It has strengths, habits and weaknesses, fleshed out in the next few paragraphs.

This is a C-class article and it has not kept pace with a maturing understanding of what is right and wrong with internet searching/researching. Five years ago we may have had an overly glowing sense of the wonders of internet research but if we can nail this article firmly, we can help readers understand this task in a much more wholesome way. I may come back later and remove some of the wishy-washyness (tends to/can be/usually) but i'd like your comments before i do that. Not certain how violent the response to this change will be. Contextcounts (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And from what reliable source(s) are you drawing this definition? ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo, are you referring to the definition of internet research as distinct from library research and commercial research? There is a simple concise reference we could use at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guideid=24 Not certain what point of definition is in question here. Contextcounts (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to the definition both in its entirety and in its specifics. (That particular part, however, I don't have any questions about; it's more of a matter of placing scope on this article to keep it focused than anything else. Unless, of course, there are reliable sources that explicitly use this phrase in a different manner which would require us to at least acknowledge that fact.) ElKevbo (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sent a note to buslib-l seeking a definition for Internet Research. Maybe that will lead to a usable weighty reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contextcounts (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Buslib-l didnt work this time - and too many of the references i'm seeing are circular - internet research is research using the internet because the wikipedia says so. LOL. Looked at that page you pointed to about "Libraries are the preeminent physical repositories"... Good spotting that. I'll work it in. Also looking through some weighty information literacy descriptions or if needed, i'll just quote myself since my book has been out 5 years already. Just wanted to say this is on my mind, though I'm moving at the moment. I've had to ask for a little time to gather support for the rewrite.Contextcounts (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402131622/http://library.concordia.ca/help/howto/internethandout.html to http://library.concordia.ca/help/howto/internethandout.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115040/https://www.library.uni.edu/research-help/undergrad-guide/doing-research/using-internet-research to https://www.library.uni.edu/research-help/undergrad-guide/doing-research/using-internet-research

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

RLC Todd thx
?????? Rivalx (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

New Section - Guide to Internet Research
Hi! I added a little guide on the page for people who are doing internet research to get them started in the right direction. Let me know what you think! Owenwitt (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Owenwitt