Each source has credible information, yet each site focuses on a different way of getting information out. I believe that Google News cannot quite reach the news prowess that CNN has achieved. CNN's website is strictly devoted to relaying information about news all around the world from their correspondents and their informants while Google simply compiles thousands of different sources into one place. That may seem nice, but I find it annoying to have to sift through tons of new stories that I feel do not adequately fit my news junkie needs.
Showing posts with label sources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sources. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Opinionated Evaluation
I am giving a disclaimer prior to posting this. THIS IS MY OPINION. Okay, you have been warned.
Monday, March 1, 2010
World of Warcraft... crack in CD-ROM form
Bad Site (but funny): http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=world+of+warcraft
Good Site: http://www.thelocal.se/17840/20090226/
Well the good site on World of Warcraft is credible because its comes from a official news site from Europe and as I searched their site I was able to find that it has been updated and the copy write was resent which is what the Library tutorial told me to do. But as for the bad site, Urban Dictionary, although very funny (warning some definitions are sometimes crude, so avoid those) this is a very unreliable source because it anyone can post what they think about the topic. Its like Wikipedia on its WORST day.
On knowing Were to Look
when looking for articles related to technology I will compare two websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/technology/01soft.html?ref=technology
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/
the first is the new york times and the second is a website called roughly drafted. roughly drafted in basically a blog type website whose very purpose is to worship all things apple. now i will admit i like apple products, but roughly drafted takes it to the extremes. the goal in not to provide an analysis of apple but rather to glorify everything they do. any competing product on the market is instantly considered to be marketed by satan and have 666 on the back. Daniel Dilger, the one running the website, has never made any concessions even when his hyberbolic predictions turn out to be false. this leads me to doubt his ability to look an idea from both sides. Even though many websites pick one side of an issue or another, they still must present a broad perspective. although the website does have some good points, the lack of objectivity printed makes it a rather unreliable source for research. contrast this to the new york times, a very reputable source who provides a generally unbiased point of view when it comes to technology.
Credible?
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.
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.
Health Care
The credible
The not so credible
The New York Times website has credibility for several reasons: their reputation, the look at both sides of the issue, and the amount of information they give. On that one website there are links to numerous articles (pro and con) that speak about health care reform. The ones that I looked at did their best to be journalistic and unbiased. Glenn Beck's website on the other hand would not be a credible source. This is because the absolute bias he has. While taking a side is important (as is sticking to your beliefs) but I feel that portraying your opponents as if they never had a rational thought is destructive to your cause. To me, Glenn Beck's use of pathos is very manipulative and falls under the fallacies of poisoning the well and appealing to emotion.
The not so credible
The New York Times website has credibility for several reasons: their reputation, the look at both sides of the issue, and the amount of information they give. On that one website there are links to numerous articles (pro and con) that speak about health care reform. The ones that I looked at did their best to be journalistic and unbiased. Glenn Beck's website on the other hand would not be a credible source. This is because the absolute bias he has. While taking a side is important (as is sticking to your beliefs) but I feel that portraying your opponents as if they never had a rational thought is destructive to your cause. To me, Glenn Beck's use of pathos is very manipulative and falls under the fallacies of poisoning the well and appealing to emotion.
The Two
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.
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.
And the Ugly
Good: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7427.pdf
Bad: http://parenting.families.com/blog/category/169
My topic is educational media, and whether parents should heavily rely on it to teach their toddlers. The first example is a good one - the website seems professional, apparently made by an organisation, so the credibility is there. The information is gathered into a neat report, which would make finding certain aspects of my topic easier. The second example, however, is not quite as up to par as the first. While also dealing with toddlers and media parenting, this website is a public one, in which any person can sign up and post. Therefore, the information lacks sufficient credibility. Also, the layout of the website is a bit harder to handle than that of the aforementioned report - the topics tend to jump around more.
Bad: http://parenting.families.com/blog/category/169
My topic is educational media, and whether parents should heavily rely on it to teach their toddlers. The first example is a good one - the website seems professional, apparently made by an organisation, so the credibility is there. The information is gathered into a neat report, which would make finding certain aspects of my topic easier. The second example, however, is not quite as up to par as the first. While also dealing with toddlers and media parenting, this website is a public one, in which any person can sign up and post. Therefore, the information lacks sufficient credibility. Also, the layout of the website is a bit harder to handle than that of the aforementioned report - the topics tend to jump around more.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
useful..
"bad" site: http://www.stxmomsblog.blogspot.com/
"good" site: http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/78-final-report.pdf
In truth, I don't think either site is better than the other, they just serve different purposes. And since the assignment was to find credible and non-credible sources for writing a paper, I chose one site that would be perfect for research information, and one site that wouldn't.. so much. The first site is a blog, of someone I know actually, and it is kind of like a campaign for midwives and homebirths.. all natural with herbs sort of thing. The blog is set up quite nicely and very organized, but it is filled with personal stories, opinions, and specific personal experiences--not and ideal source to write a detailed argument-based research paper with hard facts to support your claim. The second source is very organized with research, experiment analysis', graphs, footnotes, and other useful things. It's full of information that can be helpful in forming your own unique argument and using hard facts for support.
"good" site: http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/78-final-report.pdf
In truth, I don't think either site is better than the other, they just serve different purposes. And since the assignment was to find credible and non-credible sources for writing a paper, I chose one site that would be perfect for research information, and one site that wouldn't.. so much. The first site is a blog, of someone I know actually, and it is kind of like a campaign for midwives and homebirths.. all natural with herbs sort of thing. The blog is set up quite nicely and very organized, but it is filled with personal stories, opinions, and specific personal experiences--not and ideal source to write a detailed argument-based research paper with hard facts to support your claim. The second source is very organized with research, experiment analysis', graphs, footnotes, and other useful things. It's full of information that can be helpful in forming your own unique argument and using hard facts for support.
This is not the title of my blog post.
http://moonty.blogspot.com/2004/09/what-makes-music-popular.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_4_58/ai_58496771/
The first website is a personal blog. The author is merely providing an opinion. He has shown no credibility. His thought may be intriguing, but it would not work as a source on an academic paper. The design is minimalistic and sparse.
The second website hosts an article from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article is a good 20 pages long and includes deep, statistical proof. While the sight may be plagued with advertisements, the design of the website is significantly more professional. I would cite it on a paper, but perhaps use it as a portal to other research.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_4_58/ai_58496771/
The first website is a personal blog. The author is merely providing an opinion. He has shown no credibility. His thought may be intriguing, but it would not work as a source on an academic paper. The design is minimalistic and sparse.
The second website hosts an article from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. The article is a good 20 pages long and includes deep, statistical proof. While the sight may be plagued with advertisements, the design of the website is significantly more professional. I would cite it on a paper, but perhaps use it as a portal to other research.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
do these pants make my butt look big?
I chose to look at sites that might pertain to my research. I found one about a study on how negative comments on body image affects the mind and perspective. I think as background research this study can be useful, although it doesn't exactly give me the information I need on my issue. The site that I found that is not helpful was one about what usually comes up when I enter my topic into Google. It is about gay men and internet dating. It doesn't give the right information. It doesn't pertain to the relationship between the internet and body image.
good site: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/2/731
bad site: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/0/6/7/p240674_index.html
good site: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/118/2/731
bad site: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/0/6/7/p240674_index.html
The good...the bad
The two websites that I chose were, a site that I found using Google scholar and Wikipedia. The main difference between these two websites is the credibility that each has established. Google scholar is a reputable and well-known tool to find scholarly articles. Wikipedia is advertised as an online encyclopedia, but it allows any users to edit information in any way they choose. Because of this, Wikipedia loses credibility and is not able to be used as a reputable source. If you didn’t already know that Wikipedia is not a valid source, you could scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on “Disclaimers”. This takes you to a page that tells you that Wikipedia articles are not peer reviewed or even looked at by experts in that field. In contrast, the Google scholar article lists the authors at the very beginning of the article and tells what their qualifications are. This article has a list of references after the article and also has a visible citation available.
Credible source: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Not credible source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
Credible source: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
Not credible source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
Internet
Topic: Internet addictions
Bad Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction
Oh the joys of Wikipedia. It can be a great place to get some background information and lead you to some good websites to further your research. But it is really not reliable in the least bit. If you have a Wiki account you can add/alter/change/delete anything on almost any Wiki page. Some of the information on those pages can be straight up lies or misleading in any way. It is just better not to rely solely on Wikipedia.
Good Source:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/addiction.aspx
I find this website to be a reliable one. The copywrite is 2010, which means it is being updated reguraly. It is supported by the American Psychology Association. There is a given address in Washington DC and a phone number to contact the Association. The only advertisements that there are, are the ones that are supporting psychological disorder research. Overall, I think it is a website that can be reliable because of the contact information that is given and becuase of how well kept the website is.
Bad Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction
Oh the joys of Wikipedia. It can be a great place to get some background information and lead you to some good websites to further your research. But it is really not reliable in the least bit. If you have a Wiki account you can add/alter/change/delete anything on almost any Wiki page. Some of the information on those pages can be straight up lies or misleading in any way. It is just better not to rely solely on Wikipedia.
Good Source:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr00/addiction.aspx
I find this website to be a reliable one. The copywrite is 2010, which means it is being updated reguraly. It is supported by the American Psychology Association. There is a given address in Washington DC and a phone number to contact the Association. The only advertisements that there are, are the ones that are supporting psychological disorder research. Overall, I think it is a website that can be reliable because of the contact information that is given and becuase of how well kept the website is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)