Discussion for July

I think it was the reading laterally and click restraint, probably because I've been hearing a lot about it recently too. That fact checkers leave the website they are evaluating on the basis that if it is designed to deceive us, why stay on it? It is so blindingly obvious, but I feel I haven't demonstrated this to students, forcefully enough. They do look at the "About Us" and justify it's a credible site.

The use of teaching with Wikipedia has also come up previously, but it's good to have the same thinking reinforced and the fact that we are still unlikely to be able to penetrate and impact deeply held beliefs. (People are not motivated solely by belief to represent the world accurately.)