How reliable IS it anyway?

That's the real question. One of the greatest advantages that the internet can give is is a great deal of information. But, incorrect or unreliable information is useless, at best, and downright dangerous, at worst.

So how do you get to know the difference?

There are several things to look for.

The first thing to at look is who is behind the site. If you cannot find this out, that should be a red flag. Be very cautious. If the site is presented as belonging to an organization, and you cannot find information about the organization, especially contact and location information, then you should be extremely cautious.  This is actually worse than straightforward anonymity.  In the case of anonymity, the author clearly does not want you to know who he or she is.  There may be a good reason for this, or not.  But at least there is no deception.  In the case of supposed organizational backing, for which there is no information or contact information, there seems to be a level of deception.  A claim of institutional expertise is being made, but it really isn't there, or there is an agenda that someone is trying to hide. 

Knowing who is behind the site can give you valuable clues about the reliability of the site. Is the backer someone (individually or organizationally) with expertise in the subject? Does that someone have an agenda? Ask yourself why the site is up? What does the backer have to gain? (For this information about this site see Who I am While it's not complete, the links give you a fair amount of information, and you can track me down if you want.) 

An excellent discussion of the issue of who is behind a site can be found in a very good article on the NetworkWorld (a ).  Who's behind that Web site? Hard to know is a title that encapsulates a good deal about the issue.  And the article does point out how the presentation and slanting of facts actually reflects the biases of the backers.  But you wouldn't suspect that the information was not completely accurate and complete if you didn't dig down and find the backers.  At least in most of the sites they highlight, the information can be found.  As I said, if youcan't find that information, be very careful.

It's important to realize that altruism and an agenda are not mutually exclusive. And even someone with an agenda could manage to be very objective when discussing an issue. But, knowing the agenda gives you a clue about what to look out for.

Another big issue is how verifiable the information on the site is. Opinions and general principles are one thing. But specific facts should be verifiable, and the easier the site makes it for you to find the backup, the better. Of course, it doesn't hurt if the site also makes it easy for you to find support for the general principles, or if it points you to enough solid information to back the opinions expressed.

Remember that you can always, and in many cases definitely should, cross check information posted on a site. If you are not sure of the accuracy of information on a site, find some other sources to either confirm or disprove the information. After a while, you should have a good sense of the level of accuracy on a given site.

Last, but not least, always keep in mind that the same laws of logic and markers of sense that apply in most of the word ("off-line") apply to on-line information. Are opinions being stated as fact? Are sweeping generalizations being made where they don't apply? Are bizarre or apparently outrageous claims being made without clear and verifiable documentation?  If the site allows some interaction with the author(s), do questions that seem to challenge the author get a reasonable response?  Or does the author react be getting insulted, insulting the questioner, or implying that such "little people" could not possibly understand, and they should just "trust" him (or her)?