Good Source/ Bad Source

Assignment:

The internet can be a very valuable tool, but sometimes the sites we visit are not the most academically reliable sources. Your task is to find both examples of reliable and unreliable internet sources. First, select a topic (preferably one that has been in the media lately, like something from the New York Times---or something you plan to research for your explanatory synthesis paper). You are responsible for finding four examples of each (four good sources/ four bad sources), and then listing at least five reasons (for each source) why a source is good or bad. Try not to simply give the standard reason (…this source does not properly document information); be detailed in explaining how or why each particular website is or is not sufficient. Please paste the web address for each website into your document, next to the corresponding source. That way I can look at the sites to which you are referring. Email me your source evaluations by 5:00pm, Friday, Sept. 12, 2008. When I have checked all of your evaluations, I will select a few from each to post on this site. **Read and refer to Longman pages 165, and “Web and Internet Resources” 166-175. You’ll find section 22d “Evaluating Web and Internet Sources” (pp172-174) especially helpful. Also take a look at Five Criteria for Evaluating Web Pages and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

So….

1 topic

four reliable sources

-listing five reasons per source

four unreliable sources

-listing five reasons per source

(that’s 8 sources total)

details-details-details

Example for a reliable source:

Source 1 (name of source and link to website)

1. reason the source is reliable

2. reason the source is reliable

3. reason the source is reliable

4. reason the source is reliable

5. reason the source is reliable

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

1.) This website has a “.gov” web address, meaning that it is an official government site.

2.) The site is backed by the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services Department, which is a respected organization.

3.) There is a toll free number listed where one can call with any problems or comments, as well as an email address.

4.) The source offers the full text of many official documents, including both present and past versions.

5.) The website looks very professional features many different links, such as search options and press releases related to immigration.

Some Examples from Our Class:

Reliable Sources

1.Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

1. This website has a “.gov” web address, meaning that it is an official government site.

2. The EPA is a very respectable and prestigious agency.

3. There are many different links providing information in a very respectable manner.

4. There is an “About this site” link which backs up its facts and provides contact info.

5. There are many facts which were tested by EPA scientists.

http://www.hopkinsortho.org/labrum_tear.html
a.) Describes the actual tear, and labrum
b.) References doctors for contact
c.) Is an .org and ran by Johns Hopkins
d.) Gives locations for further assistance
e.) Leads to another source of information

http://www.japanfocus.org/_Aniya_Masaaki-Compulsory_Mass_Suicide__the_Battle_of_Okinawa__and_Japan_s_Textbook_Controversy/

Reasons for good source:

The URL has a (.org) which suggests that it is a non- profit organization
It refers to Kyoko Selden who is a scholar from Cornell University
Proper citation
The article appeared in a newspaper

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6229256.stm

Reasons for good source:

Although the URL does not have a (.org or .edu) it is from a news website
BBC is relatively well known news broadcaster
Able to contact the source if there is any problem
Website looks neat
The news is dated 2007 which means the source is pretty recent- up to date

The University of Hartford Informer. “Celebrity Influence over American Society.”
<http://media.www.hartfordinformer.com/media/storage/paper146/news/2006/10/19/EnteEnteEnter/Celebrity.Influence.On.American.Society-2377643.shtml>

1.  It comes from an educational institution- University of Hartford.
2.  It is part of the National College Advertising and Marketing
3.  It is part of the College Publisher Network and Campus, Inc.
4.  It has a copyright page and a Content Submission Agreement which reviews all the facts before posting.
5.  The site is protected and has a RSS Terms of Use page which gives the reader information about the publisher of the site and the rights.

HowStuffWorks.com
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm

1. Owned by Discovery Channel
2. Won awards for most credible website
3. Popular Science, Time, History Channel all recommend this cite
4. People that wrote the article have high degrees in the relevant topic
5. To have this much credibility and be a basic .com website, the information must be respectable because the authors went a long way to emphasize how much experience they have as writers and how much data and sources were used in their articles.

http://math.gc.cuny.edu/Charlie_Chaplin_bio.html

The site has an .edu url which often indicates a more scholarly web page.
The site is listed on a university web page, one of the CUNY schools in New York.
The info cited on the page is from a book, Leonard Maltin’s “Movie Encyclopedia.
The site’s homepage links back to the doctoral program in the CUNY school, a very reputable source I would imagine.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/specialtopic/smoking-and-smokeless-tobacco/overview.html

Run by The New York Times, accredited news source
The website is organized and looks professional
The website offers links to other articles and other websites
The quotes in the articles are given by professionals in their specific fields
The articles give references used to further investigate its credibility

Science Direct
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13619209

1. Also in Drew’s list of selected websites within the library catalog
2. Authors are well credited
3. articles are full of facts and figures with many details
4. This source looks and reads like scholarly material, fitting the quality that I’m looking for
5. The articles contain lists of sources that were used

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id241/pg1/

it was funded by one of the largest media companies in the world, TeleCommunications, Inc.
They are purposely committed to avoiding influence from government and big business
All of the editors and designers are credited
They offer monthly newsletters
They have a separate forum section different than the webpages and links they offer

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8266(196807)83%3A328%3C618%3ASFDAEI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&cookieSet=1

Jstor is an accredited database
The information is coming from a published book
Published by the Oxford University Press
This site is a .org which means from an organization
Ian R. Christie is an accredited author.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378606_climaterebut11.html

This source has references and quotes from these references
It has resources on the bottom of the page
On the bottom right hand corner of the page there is a link connecting it to the affiliates of the website.
The article was last updated on September 10, which means the website it consistently being updated
Although the page is an opinion page, on the bottom of the article it states the authors credentials and why they are legitimate resources for writing this article

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=1459
1.  This website is sponsored by the History channel.
2.  It lists other reliable sources about the topic.
3.  It provides information on “How to Cite This Site”.
4.  It includes a copyright date by A&E Television Networks.
5.  The website includes text that was written by a professor at Rutgers University.

Unreliable Sources

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp08/news/story?id=3553260 labrum tears ( the cartilage between the ball and socket)
a)    No information about the tear itself
b)    Its from ESPN
c)    No references
d)    Contains bias information
e)    An individual story

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000122/bio

There are no citations for the info on the site.
The site allows average people to post information.
The web site originally deals with movie information and doesn’t specialize in biographies.
The site is a .com, a paid web site that has no standards for being intellectual.
Too many ads are advertised, cementing that the site looks to make money, not necessarily present legitimate information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_and_health

The articles can be written and edited by anyone
Not accepted as a credible source by many teachers and professors
Has not been reviewed by a professional
Facts and figures are not well organized with each other and are just thrown into the article
All information is not guaranteed to be correct

“The Ills of Celebrity Influence” WordPress.com/ Blog
< http://drea509.wordpress.com/>
1.  The source is a free blog.
2.  The document has no official author
3.  The source is has no supporters or publishers
4.  There is no evidence that the stories are factual
5.  People can post their own articles and views on the subject.

Celebrific.com
< http://www.celebrific.com/topics/conscience-morality-tales/>
1.  It is a tabloid website; reporting on the latest gossip
2.  There is no proof to any of the stories and some are even rumors
3.  There are no publishers or supporters for the site
4.  People can post their own views about the subject (whether if it is true or not)
5.  There is no official author

Green Hybrid
http://www.greenhybrid.com/
Unreliable
1. A Search Engine type website that allows comments and also gives access to more reliable articles through its links. This site is similar to Wikipedia in many ways, but is designed specifically to find news on hybrid cars.
2. There is no clear author for the site
3. This source doesn’t match up to the standards that I am looking for. Although, it can be used to gain access to important news articles in various places such as LA Times and U.S. News and World Report.
4. anybody can write anything
5. sometimes incorrect sourcing is used, for example if I just wrote something and just didn’t source it at all or only said part of the source

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/hellfire.html

It is an amateur organization.
This site advertises for anyone and everyone, as if it were a myspace page
There were several typos throughout the body of the text
The site is biased, looking at it from a freemason’s stance
Things are cited incompletely

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422481,00.html

It is a .com (commercial website)
Has various advertisements supporting the site
FOX is know as supporting conservative views, so I would be careful about the information it presents and question if they were biased
The source is not really up to date with information, it was published last year
There are no sources of citation to outside information

http://www.megaessays.com/essay_search/mirabel_sisters.html

This is an extremely unreliable source.

It is a website with essays written about the novel that is based on the Mirabel sisters

These essays are written by random people.

People who may not have used credible sources themselves

http://answers.yahoo.com/ (Gardsil)

This is a community forum that is accessible to everyone
Anyone may read & answer the questioned asked
Answers may be opinions or biased so that it is not too reliable
The best answers are determined the public, so the best answer chosen should be handle & used with caution

Sarah Minegar, 2007-2008