Introduction
An essential resource for news and information these days is the internet. With the development of new technologies and scientific discoveries, the dynamic area of electrical and electronic engineering changes swiftly. It has been harder and harder for engineering students to determine the reliability of internet information since so much of it is available and so many information sites (Crawford, 2015). According to Rosman et al. (2015), conventional publishing firms once served as the gatekeepers of the released information. Printing was costly, and the print method made quality control possible. Anyone may write internet material in the digital era. Digital material and information may be easily copied, changed, and disseminated anonymously. To distinguish between biased statements or untrustworthy viewpoints, engineers need to be able to evaluate information critically. Engineering students can efficiently filter internet information by assessing a resource’s relevancy, substance, sources, website reliability, and possible agendas.
Assessing Expertise and Verifying Sources
Engineers should check to see if the source exhibits subject-matter competence while examining data from the internet. “People make credibility judgments by evaluating expertise and trustworthiness,” claims Metzger (2007). Does the author belong to a respected scientific institution or organization and has the necessary credentials? Do they include references or connections to primary research sources? Cross-referencing assertions with original, peer-reviewed research confirms facts and ensures correctness (Fisher et al., 2015). Since crowdsourced references may contain inaccurate material, scholarly journals should be used to counterbalance even websites like Wikipedia (Chesney, 2006). Engineers evaluate credibility by returning to the original documents and assessing the knowledgeability of the source.
Evaluating Website Reputation
The reputation of the hosting platform also contributes to its online trustworthiness. Compared to personal websites or commercial domains that aim to sell items (.com), educational and government websites (.edu and.gov) often have stricter editorial requirements (Gabarre et al., 2016). Social networks also need fact-checking since users might spread false information in large groups. Metzger (2007) discovered that websites having the.edu or.gov suffixes significantly raised users’ opinions of their legitimacy. Therefore, professional engineering associations, academic library databases, university resources, and peer-reviewed publications that engineers should give stress accuracy above page views top priority. When analyzing an online resource, one of the first things I look for is the source’s identity and the qualifications that make it an authority on the subject. “People make credibility judgments by evaluating expertise and trustworthiness,” claims Metzger (2007) (p. 2078). For instance, when I see an article on circuit design on a newspaper website, I look up the author’s educational background, professional experience, and affiliations with electrical engineering institutions. Knowing their past enables me to assess whether they possess the technical expertise to make such claims. Resources from certified engineers and information released by respectable colleges, associations, and government organizations are given greater weight.
Determining Currency and Relevance
Given the speed at which electrical engineering is developing, students should verify the relevance of publication dates or timestamps. Even websites with recent activity may offer outdated viewpoints. When discussing rapidly advancing technology, Ruffini (2020) emphasized the importance of assessing “currency, relevance, accuracy, authority, and purpose” (p. 49). Students must be more informed when it deviates from current research or engineering methods. Verifying the consistency of information across references may also be done by comparing several reliable sources. Engineers use contextual scrutiny to assess credibility by evaluating the findings’ consensus and current relevance.
Validating Facts through Cross-checking
I cross-validate facts from several reliable sources to add to the reliability of information obtained online. I can determine the reliability of material by comparing it to credible websites, scholarly publications, scientific journals, and other sources using metrics, language usage, expert opinions, and other data. This “comparative judgment of informational quality” (Rosman et al. (2015, p. 740) enables me to verify the congruency and consistency of engineering information across sites. Even if an engineer’s blog could provide insightful analysis, accuracy, and precision are tested by cross-referencing computations, formulae, and discovery descriptions with reliable sources. Before establishing a topic’s believable truth, contradicting facts necessitate more investigation.
Identifying Bias and Intent
Refrain from acknowledging bias in online content analysis might lead to erroneous interpretations. Students must consider whether ideologies or objectives shaped the author’s viewpoint (Plemmons et al., 2018). Knowledge transmission is the goal of scientific and educational sources, whereas political rhetoric and marketing organizations spread ideas or make sales. Acknowledging manipulation helps one avoid accepting false assertions at face value. Engineers should watch for biased statements, such as dramatic language, broad generalizations, selective use of facts, and a lack of supporting data (Gabarre et al., 2016). Restrained and objective behaviour conveys credibility; presenting well-rounded, evidence-based arguments indicates legitimacy. Students can better assess the reliability of references when they are aware of vested interests and confirmation bias. Every internet source has a bias, even the minor ones that affect how something is framed. When evaluating resources, engineers must ask important questions such as, “Who funds this research?” What objectives does this organization have? Does the tone change based on political affinity or business interest? Fisher et al. (2015) claim that persons who use technology for “motivated purposes” (p. 675) are more likely to engage in confirmation bias, which is the selective favouring of information that supports one’s own beliefs. As an engineering student, I double-check data and facts from sources with conflicting interests. Variability may indicate agenda-driven focus or manipulation that distorts the accepted reality. Recognizing vested interests improves the ability to judge subtleties in believability (Rains & Karmikel, 2009).
Evidence and References
A high-quality piece of writing should include references or other sources as proof. As an engineering student, I assess if outside records back up the article’s claims. This might be from credible websites, scholarly papers, or quantitative data. References show that the author did extensive research to support their claims. Does the quantity and calibre of references used affect opinions? For example, reading a research paper on renewable energy, including references to studies conducted by reputable organizations such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or the International Energy Agency, would significantly enhance the credibility of the claims made in the article.
Cross-Checking Multiple Sources
Cross-referencing crucial material with other references is one of the most significant ways to verify its trustworthiness. I can determine if there is agreement or disagreement on data, facts, theories, and other engineering aspects by checking several reliable sources. When an article asserts anything unsupported by other sources, I look into the reasons for the discrepancies. Finding valid viewpoints supported by evidence may be done very well by contrasting and comparing how many reliable references define the same idea. For example, when researching a controversial engineering topic such as renewable energy sources, I can utilize references to determine the consensus among experts. By examining multiple reliable sources, I can identify if there is agreement or disagreement on the effectiveness, environmental impact, and economic feasibility of different renewable energy technologies. If I come across an article claiming a particular technology is highly efficient without any supporting evidence from other sources, I would investigate further to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy and evaluate the claim’s credibility.
Confirming Facts across Multiple Sources
Information may be further verified by cross-referencing it. Consistency is measured by comparing terms, data, theories, and statistics to reliable sources (Rosman et al., 2015). Students can confirm authenticity by cross-referencing important facts from correctly cited scholarly publications, university websites, science magazines, and engineering societies. Examining assertions that only show up on websites with no credit or that contradict reliable sources is encouraged. Engineers use consensus as a criterion for legitimacy by verifying that important information is in agreement amongst qualified authorities. Discrepancies need more research rather than acquiescing in silence. Engineering is changing quickly as discoveries and technologies are discovered regularly. I thoroughly check references for timeliness by looking at article dates, website publication dates, and timestamps on blogs and journals to avoid references with outdated or outdated viewpoints. It is possible for old content to be merged into websites, even with new posts. Given the dynamic rate of technical innovation, Ruffini (2020) emphasizes assessing “currency, relevance, accuracy, and authority” (p. 49). I still emphasize current sources directly related to discoveries and advancements in the field. By calculating genuine temporal relevance, I can use trustworthiness evaluations to exclude out-of-date web material.
Conclusion
In the rapidly changing field of electrical engineering technology, students must navigate a digital environment where it is critical to identify reliable sources of information. Electrical engineering students need to develop strong critical thinking abilities because of the increasing time they spend utilizing the internet. Being able to separate reliable information from unreliable sources becomes a critical ability requiring a multidimensional approach. Essential stages in this process include scrutinizing author credentials, tracking the provenance of cited information, assessing the reputation of websites, guaranteeing current relevance, identifying biases, and cross-referencing information against credible sources. Engineers must become adept at applying high standards to the references they consult in a world with constantly changing online media and competing agendas. Engineers need to be able to critically evaluate the validity of the context in which they interact with electrical and electronic engineering content to comprehend the complexities of their field fully.
References
Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility. First Monday, 11(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i11.1413
Crawford, J. (2015). Evaluation of information sources. In Think for yourself: Critical thinking and informal logic, (p. 95). Waveland Press.
Fisher, M., Goddu, M. K., & Keil, F. C. (2015). Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 674. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000070
Gabarre, C., Gabarre, S., Din, R., Shah, P. M., & Karim, A. A. (2016). Using critical thinking methodology to produce reliable online knowledge regarding traceability information in the food sector. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 11, 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.12.006
Metzger, M.J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20672
Plemmons, D., Brody, J., & Kalichman, M. (2018). Student mistrust of science-based online sources: Teaching critical appraisal of online information to promote conservation behaviour. Science Communication, 40(5) 629–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
Rosman, T., Mayer, A.K., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining self-assessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment: empirical results and recommendations for practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 740-751. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.950554
Ruffini, M. F. (2020). Online credibility assessment: Conceptual structure and measurement models. Online Information Review. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2020-0113
write