The bad-http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/healtheducation/violencechildren/violencechildren.html
The good- http://allpsych.com/journal/violentmedia.html
The first website is not an official site. It looks like someone just put it together for their own benefit and just basicilly doesn't look official. All though it looks like there is alot of information there are no references at the end. Some of the information the author has is from later, like 1993 making it not so credible. The second article is a journal. The website looks official, organized, and there are no advertisements on it. There are also references at the end making it credible. The author was also identified and the date that it was published which helps on deturming its currency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The "bad" article is very interesting to me. Do you think that even the opening little bit (title, blood, and gun facing you) do anything to reduce the credibility of the website?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the "bad" one has a lot of information and to me tries to pass of as authoritative but yet a lot of the links it has are broken so they author can't back up his information.
once again i don't mean to be argumentative. but to say that first one has no references is untrue - it has 27. they may not be neatly organized and at the bottom but they are still there (i only found two that were broken). while his presentation is no doubt sloppy it doesn't mean he is not well versed and credible. he spends most of the site talking about the sources. the information is not without backing. even if they are older. the second source is no doubt more credible because it is primary and current, but i don't believe the first one deserves the appellation of "the bad". perhaps just "the not as good." the non-journal would probably be better used as a collection of sources rather then a source itself. it is tertiary after all.
ReplyDeleteAaron, I think the title does a lot for the website. Although it caught my eye very quickly, I thought it made it seem not as reliable that it was almost just a fun website or something.
ReplyDeleteTroy, I guess you are right. It does have hyperlinks to other sites. But even when he does give credit to these other sites sometimes it doesn't even go to the article, for example he writes, "The Kaiser Foundation reports that nearly all children in the United States..." he has the hyperlink on "The Kaiser Foundation." But when you go to this link it just is their home page. I did not see where he got that information from that page. Or even when he writes, "The American Psychological Association notes that research shows that babies as young as 12..." its hyperlinked on "The American Psychological Association" but it just goes to the homepage, so it does not show where he got that research or statistics. By not having an actually bibliography, at least to me, it shows that it's not super credible, either because he did not have time, did not care or and even could have made it up. He should have it easliy available to see where he got this information and to be able to go directly to the site and see that information.
ReplyDeleteyou did a more digging then i did Chelsie. If some of his references just link to pages other then that of the article they are not as credible as i had originally supposed.
ReplyDeleteAny web designer who puts .GIF clipart from MS Word on his webpage is revealing himself to be a little behind the times.
ReplyDelete