2

A school history textbook

Textbooks for younger students (11-14) tend to just provide a single basic explanation of the causes of the war,
sometimes giving the impression that there is an agreed version of the causes of World War One. This is to avoid confusing students.
However, this is some ways misleading.
Even a century after the outbreak of war, there is no consensus amongst all professional historians about responsibility for the war.
In some European countries, an important part of a historical education is to get students to understand that historical knowledge is
tentative, provisional and contested, but that some explanations have more evidence to support them than others.
In the UK, textbooks for advanced level study (16-18 year olds) to include controversies of interpretation, and even text books for
younger pupils introduce pupils to the idea of there being different interpretations of past events.
It should be added that text books
have to cover lots of topics, so they only have a very small amount of text to explain things so they have to give a very basic and simple explanation.

3

Articles in popular history magazines, like the one you have just read

Articles in popular history magazines (like the one you have just read)
Both History Today, and BBC History Magazine,
have editorial boards including respected academic historians, who act as guardians of the quality and authority of contributors to the magazine.
Contributions are almost always from professional historians who have expertise in the fields they are writing about.
Often the article is presented because the author has just written a book based on recent research.
However, not all articles refer explicitly to theories other than their own, make it clear that there are other opinions about
the issue they are writing about. Articles in the two magazines are generally between 3,000 and 5,000 words, so there is much more chance of
giving a fuller and more developed explanation of events than in a text book (but not a much as with a book).

4

A television programme (eg 1st episode of BBC’s The Great War)

As with newspapers, some channels have a higher reputation for accuracy and impartiality than others.
Mainstream and state funded channels generally have a higher reputation than cable channels (Fox, History Channel).
Most programmes are either written or presented by respected professional historians, or have professional historians who act as advisors
to programme makers. However, many series are narrated by ‘celebrity historians’ who often just present their own view on the history which is covered,
and do not acknowledge the views of other historians who think differently, or where their view about what happened
and why has less evidence to support it than some of their other conclusions.

5

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a (free) online encyclopaedia collaboratively written by anyone who wishes to contribute to it and (importantly) edited,
revised and corrected by others who are interested/expert in the topic. Views differ as to its reliability and accuracy, but in 2005,
an article in Nature, a science journal, reported that it was roughly as accurate as The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, for science entries.
Wikipedia has got better at correcting erroneous or mischievous errors but its founder Jimmy Wales acknowledged that its accuracy
‘varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers
tend to have more collective expertise in such areas.’ (Quoted in Wired, at technology magazine,
at http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844) There is a good and up to date discussion of wikipedia’s reliability
on the State of Delaware’ s Division of Libraries' Blog(The Official Blog of the Delaware Division of Libraries / State Library), at
http://library.blogs.delaware.gov/2013/05/05/is-wikipedia-reliable-source/.

Just Google it…

A recent survey in the UK by Ofcom found that 38% of 12-15 year olds believed that if a search result came up on
a. Google search, it meant it was accurate/true information.
Young people need to understand that the internet is not a reliable and trustworthy source of information (Ofcom (2013) Children and parents:
media use and attitudes, London, Ofcom). Google can be useful, but one problem can be the sheer number of hits which result,
which can be overwhelming, plus not all entries are from ‘respectable’ or trustworthy sources, especially in controversial areas of history.
In the words of Professor Stephen Church, University of East Anglia,
‘The internet is wonderful for historians, but you’ve got to remember that there is absolutely no one between you and
the idiot who is putting this stuff on the web’ (Stephen Church, seminar, School of Education, 10 May 2002).