Now, your web browser can't think, write, or research for you, so none of these extensions can help you with those things. At least not directly. I consider these useful extensions for the "frequent commenter"–some one who posts frequently and maybe does some research (imagine that!). I've limited these to extensions I use personally so browser rss readers or blogging extensions are out because I don't use those (I use a standalone program for feeds and Blogger's built-in post composer). Enough of all that. Here are the utilities:
Lazarus
I just found out about this, and it's definitely promising. I'm sure we've all hit 'back' by mistake when we were composing a post and have lost what they were writing. Lazarus solves this problem by saving everything* entered into textboxes and allows you to recover them later. Available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.
*With certain limitations on Chrome (see their FAQ).
Resurrect Pages (aka Arantius)
Gives you the option, when faced with a "this page cannot be displayed" message, to 'resurrect' a page. That is, grab a page from a cache. Lets you select from seven caching or mirroring services, but I find Google and the Internet Archive are the only ones you need. If they don't have it, then, typically, none of them will. Available for Firefox only, unfortunately.
Readability
Distracted by ads, sidebars, and other peripheral 'content'? Readability is the solution. A click turns the page you're viewing into a reading-centric experience. The creators turned to turn their simple extension into a fuller experience that allows readers to compensate content creators, but it requires a subscription fee. The basic extension is still available for free here. Safari users have the 'reader' function built-in that does much the same thing.
These extensions are all polished and functional, so I suggest checking out their creator's other offerings. And if you find them particularly useful—donate!
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers
I debunk/fact-check claims here, but of course I am one of many such sites. In another post (or series of posts, most likely) I will shed some light on the sources I use to check/debunk claims.
General
One of the best known is Snopes, which focuses primarily on the myriad claims that are forwarded from inbox to inbox. Most of the claims tend toward the ridiculous/trivial (as you might expect, given the ridiculous trash that people forward), but some appear in serious conversation. One disadvantage is that Snopes doesn't detail how they determined a claim's truthfulness, but that is a minor problem.
Politics
Focusing around individual claims, Politifact, provides the necessary context to verify claims made by pundits, politicians, and the public. Features the memorable 'Truth-o-meter,' which ranges from 'true' to 'pants on fire' (complete with animated flames). The site also looks at President Obama's promises at the Obamameter and the GOP's promises at the GOP Pledge-O-Meter. A Pulitzer prize winner in 2009.
One of my favorites is FactCheck.org, which offers a well-written and thorough analysis of claims made re politics. It doesn't have anything as easily remembered as the 'Truth-o-meter,' perhaps, but is very reliable and thoroughly non-partisan.
Pseudoscience
For debunking medical myths and snake-oil salesmen, look no further than Quackwatch.org. Written by a medical doctor, the site has won several awards and has been recognized by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health. Along with (sourced!) take-downs of unscientific "medicine," the site features information on how to find legitimate healthcare.
When compared to medicine, astronomy may not seem to have much pseudoscience, but you'd be surprised. From astrology to 2012 "planetary alignment" myths, Phil Plait has his work cut out for him. You can see his ongoing efforts at Bad Astronomy. The site includes an index of claims and his blog.
A quick note on 'non-partisan'
All the sites above, as far as I can tell, are non-partisan and aren't out to push propaganda for either side. Also, they typically 'show their work,' so you can read the same studies and reports that they looked at to make their determination. None of the allegations of bias I've seen hold up to scrutiny.
All of these sites come as highly recommended from me, but I suggest that you look at them with a critical eye, holding them accountable even as they hold others accountable.
General
One of the best known is Snopes, which focuses primarily on the myriad claims that are forwarded from inbox to inbox. Most of the claims tend toward the ridiculous/trivial (as you might expect, given the ridiculous trash that people forward), but some appear in serious conversation. One disadvantage is that Snopes doesn't detail how they determined a claim's truthfulness, but that is a minor problem.
Politics
Focusing around individual claims, Politifact, provides the necessary context to verify claims made by pundits, politicians, and the public. Features the memorable 'Truth-o-meter,' which ranges from 'true' to 'pants on fire' (complete with animated flames). The site also looks at President Obama's promises at the Obamameter and the GOP's promises at the GOP Pledge-O-Meter. A Pulitzer prize winner in 2009.
One of my favorites is FactCheck.org, which offers a well-written and thorough analysis of claims made re politics. It doesn't have anything as easily remembered as the 'Truth-o-meter,' perhaps, but is very reliable and thoroughly non-partisan.
Pseudoscience
For debunking medical myths and snake-oil salesmen, look no further than Quackwatch.org. Written by a medical doctor, the site has won several awards and has been recognized by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health. Along with (sourced!) take-downs of unscientific "medicine," the site features information on how to find legitimate healthcare.
When compared to medicine, astronomy may not seem to have much pseudoscience, but you'd be surprised. From astrology to 2012 "planetary alignment" myths, Phil Plait has his work cut out for him. You can see his ongoing efforts at Bad Astronomy. The site includes an index of claims and his blog.
A quick note on 'non-partisan'
All the sites above, as far as I can tell, are non-partisan and aren't out to push propaganda for either side. Also, they typically 'show their work,' so you can read the same studies and reports that they looked at to make their determination. None of the allegations of bias I've seen hold up to scrutiny.
All of these sites come as highly recommended from me, but I suggest that you look at them with a critical eye, holding them accountable even as they hold others accountable.
Why I haven't posted in a while
I haven't posted a lot recently. In fact, I haven't posted anything since Jan. 17, a regrettably long time. Part of this comes from the fact I've temporarily halted my fact-checking posts. I've found myself less inclined to debunk and I'm not sure the way I've been doing it has been good netiquette.
Usually I do some research, write it up, and re-read the article to make sure I've addressed the claim fairly. Then I revise my post, publish it, and summarize my post as a comment with a link to the specific post on my blog. Almost all of those steps I'm good with. The last part of the last step, I'm not sure about. Posting on other people's blogs with a link to your own blog is starting to strike me as tacky. Still, I still want to debunk in a full post (rather than a comment). It's a quandary and to resolve it I will look the general attitude towards this practice.
I do have a lot of content 'in the pipeline' as it is. I've been doing plenty of writing on critical thinking and critical thinking resources, so expect those to come your way soon. Part of the reason you haven't seen any of that is because my inner perfectionist has made an appearance and I don't want to publish them without editing them...again...and again. I'm breaking that tonight, with a post I think you'll find useful.
Usually I do some research, write it up, and re-read the article to make sure I've addressed the claim fairly. Then I revise my post, publish it, and summarize my post as a comment with a link to the specific post on my blog. Almost all of those steps I'm good with. The last part of the last step, I'm not sure about. Posting on other people's blogs with a link to your own blog is starting to strike me as tacky. Still, I still want to debunk in a full post (rather than a comment). It's a quandary and to resolve it I will look the general attitude towards this practice.
I do have a lot of content 'in the pipeline' as it is. I've been doing plenty of writing on critical thinking and critical thinking resources, so expect those to come your way soon. Part of the reason you haven't seen any of that is because my inner perfectionist has made an appearance and I don't want to publish them without editing them...again...and again. I'm breaking that tonight, with a post I think you'll find useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)