Where to research the furry fandom?

Google is a tool... it is only as good as the user. Google is perfectly trustworthy, because it states absolutely nothing; it merely hands you the information you asked for. If you don't get what you want/need, you're asking wrong.

I've been involved in amateur studies on various search engines and research methods, and depending on what you're looking for, Google's pretty close to the top of the list. Dogpile's another reliable tool, I've found.

Really, as far as using a search engine for reliable sources, it is best to (and I think this is what Giza was getting at) research your sources. In other words, look up what information makes Dr. John Doe a reliable speaker on your topic.

Funny you should mention Britannica... Wikipedia survives research test:

"The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows."

Could there be inaccurate stuff on WikiPedia? Sure. It's happened before. But there are a surprising number of high quality, well-researched articles to be found there as well. I believe that your English teacher's choice to arbitrarily discount entire sites just because they might contain inaccurate information is short-sighted and a disservice to you, her students.

Anyway, that's enough venting from me... in an attempt to try and bring this thread back on topic, I'll give you a resource: Furries From A to Z (Anthropomorphism to Zoomorphism). This was the result of a survey done by Dr. Kathleen Gerbasi at Anthrocon 2006. It has lots of technical details about the survey and should appease your English teacher.

 
--
My LiveJournal - My Website - See what I'm doing on Twitter

Alright stop right there... I feel a stream of thought coming on...

What you are asking for is a so called "trusted" source of information. When you use the internet, watch tv, or read a book you should evaluate on a personal level what it is that you trust as a source. Obviously you trust your teacher's opinion that Google and Wikipedia are not trustworthy sources. Putting that aside, there are a couple of things that I'd like to point out, or at least shed some light on.

Google searches are essentially just a way of finding information on the internet. It's a tool, a program written by the programmers at Google to more or less catalog the internet, and given keywords will return a list of pages in order of the level of relevance that the program assigned to them. So when you use Google it doesn't usually care whether or not the result is a trustworthy source to the user, and it will leave it up to the user to decide what is trustworthy to them. It would be nearly impossible to find information on the internet today without searchengines, just because of the sheer immenseness of the information contained on it. So don't base research off of Google results solely, but you should consider using it as a tool to locate potential research options on the internet. When you arrive at a webpage, and this can be any webpage, you can usually look around it to see if it a reputable source by seeing what other information it cites (if any), if the person who wrote the webpage is "trustworthy" (are they an accredited scientist, a sleazy reporter, your average Joe, etc), when it was written, and for what purpose, and a variety of other factors.

Wikipedia on its own is essentially an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This brings up some obvious concerns, however the very large user base of Wikipedia is generally committed to upholding Wikipedia's stringent policies on what gets to be up there. Basically everything is supposed to be cited from some other information, or website, and is to be written from a neutral standpoint, so if you check the sources that the page makes reference to, then you're usually safe. I could go into a long winded discussion on how Wikipedia actually works, but it's much better explained by itself in my opinion. Encyclopedias in general have to pass reviews to see whether or not information contained within is relevant, up to date, and of course, that it is correct. Likewise Wikipedia is always being reviewed by it own users.

But then, you could and should be asking yourself, "why should I be listening to these people? Are they genuine, or trustworthy enough?" To decide this, you really have to think and figure out whether or not you think you should trust this information, and why.

There's a lot of information that people trust, for instance many of our experienced posters here on this forum based on their personal experiences, encyclopedias for their wealth of information and their reputations, weather reports, the bible, the internet, serial boxes, teachers, and the list goes on and on forever. The point I'm trying to make is, come to your own conclusions on who you should trust about what information. There are many opinions, facts, opinionated people, subtexts, and the like. Things are written for any number of reasons, but to find what that purpose is, can really make a difference in how you trust the writing.

When it comes down to it, how do you know that you should really trust yourself, or to trust your senses? Is what you see, or what you hear the "correct thing," or is it an illusion?

Just because millions of people use Google to look things up doesn't make them right, but also just because your teacher said certain things are one way or another doesn't make her right either. Take everything with a grain of salt, and look at the big picture. Hopefully, you'll find the answers you're looking for.

For more information on the above I encourage looking at these links:
Is Wikipedia accurate and reliable
About Wikipedia (already linked in body)
About Google

And for more information about the furry fandom, look around, and do some research ;P
Not long ago a Dr Kathy Gerbasi did some work on furries and the fury fandom. Her livejournal has some information on it, though Giza already mentioned a paper that she wrote. Her journal is a little less technical, so it might help you understand some of the research in the paper. Consider looking at some of the cited sources she used in her paper for performing your own research.

Wikifur isn't a bad place to look, but has a smaller user base than wikipedia does, so while the theory is the same, Wikifur is inherently more prone to being less perfect. Generally the information contained in Wikifur is pretty decent from what I've seen.

Sorry about the long rant above, but college and high school classes in the subject matter sometimes does that to you... haha! Maybe next time I rant, I'll try to make it shorter than a page and a half long. Good luck with things, and be careful.