Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Which Sites Can You Trust?

There are unreliable sites all over the web that provide curious readers with limited and incorrect information. Undoubtedly, the case is similar for chronic illnesses, specifically being Type 1 Diabetes. It is easy for readers to browse through unreliable information in search for something that may help them. Coming across such sites is common and here is an example of one:




This site, http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Diabetes_Diet_Plan_The_Good_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly.html, is unreliable for a number of reasons and the following will discuss why:


What is the source?


Since this is a .com website it cannot be defined as a completely reputable source because anyone can make  a website without having any prior knowledge on the subject. Information would be held in much higher regard if the site was from a .org, .gov, .ca, or .edu source. The author of this article could have easily copied and pasted information from another source. He does not reference any of his information whereas other credible sources will cite where they have received their information from.


What is the date?


The actual date of when the article was published is not found, therefore, it can be led to believe that maybe the information presented is outdated and therefore, not in effect anymore.


Who is saying it?


The author is an individual named Aron Wallad. There is nothing to suggest that the author has any doctorate certification or obtained a higher degree of any type.




This screenshot shows that this is something that the author has tried himself and is now attempting to sell  the diabetes natural solutions so that others can have similar effects and lower their blood sugar by over 50%. This information cannot be relied upon because the evidence is anecdotal and the reader doesn't know very much at all about the author. Does the author even suffer from the chronic illness? What evidence, other than that it has worked for him, does he have or even provide?


What evidence is provided?


As previously noted, the evidence provided seems to be purely anecdotal. The author makes suggestions to help people with their diets and discusses the glycemic index very briefly, not really mentioning what it is in detail. There is no experimental or referencing evidence to supplement the author's claims. Again, the author is publishing information based off his own personal experiences through "diabetes natural solutions" (Wallad 2012).


Is their a potential bias?


Yes, there is. A reader will notice the amount of advertisements scattered all over the website. This suggests that if readers click on these ads that the author will most likely benefit financially from them. Moreover, the site's main focus is not even on diabetes as it is titled as a self growth site and focuses a lot more on individual spirituality.






As much as their are unreliable sources of information out there, there are also a wide variety of credible information that proves to be very useful for readers and individuals wanting to learn more. Here are a couple that counter what the above unreliable source contains:

1) The Canadian Diabetes Association



Unlike the unreliable site, this one is a .ca which means the nation (in this case Canada) has gathered research from reliable and valid people and places. Since this is not a .com site, it is not trying to sell something to you as is quite apparent in the source mentioned above. The information that this source provides will be more accurate as its main intention is to inform readers and not reach into their pockets. 

2) Vancouver Coastal Health



The unreliable source mentions the benefits of using the glycemic index to track diet plans if diabetic yet does not go into much detail explaining it. Additionally, because the above-mentioned site cannot be trusted for its credibility due to the fact it has potential biases, readers will tend to be skeptical about the information provided about the glycemic index. This site can be relied on its credibility because it provides charts that convey to readers the effects of consuming food with high GI's in contrast to low GI foods and gives you examples of what foods to eat and when to eat them. Essentially, it is helping one to make an ideal meal plan. The information, again, is intended to educate and does not have ulterior motives as it is not attempting to sell anything. 



This just goes to show that despite the amount of information that may be out there, there is a lot of it that is not credible in what it informs its readers. Hopefully, this has helped some of you realize what to look out for when trying to decide if a source is reliable and valid. 


References

Canadian Diabetes Association | Diabetes & You. (n.d.). Canadian Diabetes Association | Home. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.diabetes.ca/diabetes-and-you/
Glycemic Index & Diabetes. (n.d.). Vancouver Coastal Health. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://vch.eduhealth.ca/PDFs/FL/FL.860.G525.pdf
Wallad, A. (n.d.). Diabetes Diet Plan. The Good The Bad and The Ugly. Self Improvement from SelfGrowth.com. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Diabetes_Diet_Plan_The_Good_The_Bad_and_The_Ugly.html








No comments:

Post a Comment