Credible vs. Not Credible
The first site is credible because it comes from an Institute and is being kept current. This shows that someone is keeping up the site. Also just the overall appearance of the site looks professional. On the site there are links to government websites which gives it more credible support. The second website, the famous Wikipedia, may appear to be credible yet it is something that is on the borderline because people can edit it themselves and so information may not be very accurate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not to be argumentative but there are somethings in this i want to look at. you say of wikipeida, "people can edit it". Do people not edit the first source? do robots do it or something? what makes the ideas of the people in the NIH more credible then those in wikipedia? is it because the first source has links to government websites? well so does wikipeida, it has 46 of them. And is wikipeida not regularly updated as well? And how does professional look make the content any more credible? ti seems this would just give more of appearance of credibility. also on wikipeida i fail to see anything they say that would not be supported by NIH. on top of that iffy claims on wikipedia can be challenged and removed. who keeps in check the NIH? it would appear as if both sources are be equally credible in showing the stem cell controversy.
ReplyDeleteSure people edit the content on the first website, but they are people who are familiar with the topic and it is their job to work on the site. They have a reputation to uphold. On Wikipedia anyone can make a statement and it could be slightly off. On the first site the government links I'm referring to appear to actually look like they might be sponsors or partners of some sort. I may be totally wrong about that though. That library tutorial thing said one thing to look for on a site was the appearance so that is where I got that point from. Wikipedia may be credible and I know they do update it, but in my experience I have been told to stay away from it when doing academic papers. Maybe it has become more reliable now though.
ReplyDeleteCourtney I am with you. The organization is a big deal. It has always made the website seem better but then when I heard it on the library turtorial it just reinforced it for me. Same with you, I have always been told not to use Wikipedia for a source, all though high school and junior high. I had always heard that just anyone can change whatever they want. So I went to the site and pushed on the edit box, but it looks like they wouldn't let you any more. So I don't know if this is a recent change or not, or if its just for that article.
ReplyDeleteUm, I'm too lazy to read the comments other ppl have made on this, so I might repeat what they've said. Hemhem, I think Wikipedia is a pretty darn credible source... Granted, not always, but pretty darn. One time my dad was in an hour long class, and his instuctor got on wikipedia at the beginning of class and changed the date of Joseph Smith's birthday. By the end of the hour it had been changed back.
ReplyDeleteBut then again I've heard of another story from my friend who has a friend whose mom is famous. If you wiki her page has the dates of her kids birth's on there and her son's is wrong. Fun fact.
apparently i missed some stuff with this library tutorial. but once again i would argue that wikipedia is no less organized then the NIH. it may be laid out different but items are easy to locate, which is the whole point. And i am certainly not saying that the NIH is incredible.
ReplyDeletei think that english teachers have corrupted the image of Wikipedia. here is an article from George Mason uUniversity about wikipedias reliability. they rate it on average only one error more per article then Britannic- whose average is 3.
http://www.stats.org/stories/2009/internet_sober_corrective_unruly_journalists_may22_09.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
ReplyDeleteI don't think it will ever get to the point where Wikipedia can be cited as a source in scholarly journals (unless some kind of "safe zone" with heavier oversight can be introduced), but it's rarely inaccurate.