EasyBib has a new feature. According to their promo video , when you autocite a website, it will tell you if it is credible, not credible, or something in between.
For instance, Wikpedia is NOT deemed to be a credible source. I know there are differing options over that issue – but EasyBib gives a “black and white” answer …. (in this case displayed in red).
I am a great fan of EasyBib … but this feature makes me uncomfortable. I don’t mind automating a more “routine” kind of operation such as creating a citation. When all is said and done, at least automated citation tools make it easier for kids to “do the right thing”.
BUT….. as much as I like using web tools to enhance research, I don’t like automating the evaluation process. I want kids to THINK about their sources, track down evidence to support or reject a source, etc. In short, I want them to have the opportunity to do some higher level THINKING.
I’ve been testing EasyBib’s new evaluation feature. Easy Bib says this webpage is credible:
Joust and Tournaments
It is a very cute website, created by Brian for a 4th/5th grade classroom website. I use it as an example of a website that is NOT credible, because the author is a child.
So much for the new feature. Machines just cannot think. Not really…. Even machines that are monitored by people… (see comment below from EasyBib rep). Every web page is an individual situation. If we “outsource” the thinking process to machines or other people, how long before our ability to think will atrophy?
It would be interesting to watch how the whole thing plays out. Another thing to miss when I retire….watching students and teachers adapt to new tools.
I would love to hear your opinions.
This reminds me of the trouble I’m having with Zotero and the automatic citation process with aggregated material. The MLA citations are so far from being correct that I think it would be hindrance to students even with considering this as a jump start. Perhaps I don’t have my setting correct and there is a way to do this correctly but it does make me suspicious of easy answers.
I am not familiar with that source. I find the citation part of Easybib to be quite good. It is NOT 100% Probably not even 90% – but the kids seem to “get” the fact that they need to look over the results and spot inaccuracies. I also really like the fact that they outline in read all the blanks that are not able to be determined automatically. I can show them some funny examples of Easybib citations gone astray, and the kids get the point pretty quickly.
I received this email from an Easybib rep within an hour or so of posting. It is quite obvious that they are a very thoughtful company and want their product to be as accurate and useful as possible. I STILL prefer that my students do the “heavy lifting” themselves. In a follow-up email, Kerry tells me that they are working on a very promising feature, more in line with my thinking.
Here is Kerry’s email.
Hello Jacquie,
My name is Kerry Kitka and I head up Business Development for EasyBib.com. I recently came across you blog post which discussed EasyBib’s new Website Evaluation Tool and I thought I’d reach out to you just to clarify a few things you may have doubts about.
Our new evaluation tool was created by borrowing from the best practices of librarians in their own evaluation guidelines for online information. We definitely appreciate the teacher’s wish for students to learn information literacy skills, as opposed to just being told what to do by technology. As such, we always provide a breakdown of the criteria used for each evaluation as well as the reasons for its importance. We encourage students to visit our website evaluation guides at this page: http://easybib.com/ebook/mla_websiteeval in order to see actual examples of websites that fall into each category and so they can gain an understanding of why a source is credible or not. We believe that because we are catching students in the citation process, we are reinforcing the idea that they must evaluate the sources they cite.
Additionally, EasyBib’s Website Evaluation is not an algorithm executed by a computer, but rather a guide that was put together and then used by humans to assign grades to each site. We spent months having our employees move through each site on a large list in order to gauge its credibility to the best of their ability. Which also means, not every website in existence has been evaluated – in fact not even close. If a student comes across a site that has not yet been evaluated they will be informed of this fact and encouraged to evaluate it based on given criteria.
That being said, we definitely agree with you that the site you used as an example is not a credible source. We have evaluated the main domains of websites. Because that site is a sub-page of a school’s website it fell under the umbrella of the main evaluation – which was credible. Unfortunately, sometimes it can be difficult to find every sub-page that a site can have. But we are constantly evaluating and re-checking our work and we love feedback from educators like yourself; it helps us to make the best educational products possible. We’ve taken your point into consideration and already changed the evaluation for that site. For Wikipedia, we have changed its rating, and have put in a detailed note explaining how it should be treated. Going forward, we’ll be looking more closely at sites whose main pages are credible, but which could contain sub-pages with user generated content.
Again, I thank you so much for taking the time to look at our product and provide constructive feedback. Our goal is always to improve students’ learning, understanding and information literacy and we couldn’t do the best job possible without advice from experts like you.
I hope that you continue to assess how EasyBib can be useful to your students in the future.
Kind regards,
Kerry
I have to agree…one more way to get kids to stop thinking for themselves. There is bound to be websites used in error because of it.