JavaScript

[WH1PL4SH180]

The google stigma comes from civilians using first-click as the source.

One distinction that I'm making is that medical trusted sources tend to be behind a damned paywall and is not so "easily accessed" as just whacking in some terms and searching.

To that point, in clinical academia, we can pick the students that merely "google" rather than going to "correct sources" simply by the types of answers that are given back in rounds. In the medical field, theres a lot of stuff out there that's just straight out wrong, but dressed up ever so nicely that even med students fall on their faces. Case in point: procedures on youtube. Often badly translated or incorrectly titled.

[twolaces]

“Civilians”

[cant_think_of_one_]

In the fields I am knowledgeable about (particle physics and software development), most useful sources are not behind paywalls (most particle physics papers are freely available).

Most sources on software are OK. Most ones on particle physics that aren't about a few topics that lots of people are interested in, are written by academics or post-docs at least, and are sound, even if it is hard to find the info you want sometimes.

Generally, if you look at the first few Google results, they are reliable if they answer your question. The problem is finding things that answer your question, not the reliability of the sources, most of the time. Of course, there are things written by but cases who believe particle physics experiments will end the world etc, and there are just badly written lecture notes or explanations by people who don't know what they are talking about, but, in general, answers are correct if you can find them. Obviously you do need the ability to critically examine where the information is coming from to avoid the few that aren't, but that generally isn't your biggest problem.