In article , JennyC
writes
The WWW as a whole is well down on the list of reliability, as is
UseNet. (There's very little quality control on either.) Some bits
are
good, others are nonsense, and one has to be able to tell the
difference.

But HOW ??

I don't see that there's a difference in principle between evaluating
information on the Net and elsewhere, but the Net has a greater
proportion of more outright malicious, fraudulent or dishonest material
than most other media.

Google evaluating quality information InterNet gives a long list of
pages on how to evaluate information on the net. (Of course, there is
the question as to how to ascertain which of these are reliable. :-) )

But there probably better than an attempt by myself to crystallise the
unformalised processes I practice, and anyway university librarians are
a more authoritative source on the topic than myself.

See also my "Bulletin Board Bestiary" page (semi-humerous) at

http://www.meden.demon.co.uk/Articles/bestiary.html

for various sources of noise, as opposed to signal, on discussion
groups.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley