-The first source I decided to evaluate was the Did You Know? video on youtube. It had me really interested in class when we watched it. After watching it again, I decided to do a little bit of research to find out where all the facts came from and who paid for the research/production and so on. At the end of the video it said that the research was done by Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, and Jeff Bronman. I googled Karl Fisch and dug around to find out that he was a high school teacher and Director of Technology at a high school in the Littleton community, which is South of Denver. I peeked on the schools website and read one of Fisch's publications in the school's newsletter, which lead me to believe that he was highly in favor the advancement of education through new technology. I also poked around in the high school's website and found that they are definately a technology driven school because similar to our course, the teachers post homework on the schools website. After learning all this, I would definately consider the video to be an authoritative source because Fisch, as a educator who appears to highly value his position, is a credible source. Also, the issues brought up in the video made a valid and strong point, we are living in exponential times.
-Next, I decided to check out the Facebook & Privacy, the new terms of service issue. The first thing I looked at was that website the information is posted on is editted (by website editors, but other people aside from the author aren't), updated, and viewed constantly. Knowing that, I already decided this to be a credible and authoritative source. I also went the same route as my previous source and looked into author, Chris Walters. I ended up reading some of his other pieces and he generally seems to expose when big corporations have a mishap. The information he posted about facebook was merely the translation of the new terms. But overally, Walters clearly identifies the facebooks terms and the danger people accept when agreeing. For the most part, the way he choose to write it was effective because quoting the actual terms and then explaining what they mean helped me understand it. Also, by exploring the ugly possibilites that could arise with the new terms, (like having your photos distributed to anyone at anytime for anything) Walters definately includes strong examples. Therefore I would consider this an authoritative source.
-The final source I decided to do was on the smoking gun website. This was also one that we looked at in class. I can't remember if Dr. Harris told us the article was true or not but after looking into the website I learned that it is ran by Court Tv. When I searched "about" in their website search box, I quickly learned that all the stories and documents are real and obtained through free information to the public. After learning this, I would definately call this an authoritative source. Also, the statements made in this article are all facts, therefore it is unbiased. The website is just a way to put weird, random yet intriguing information out to the world in an interesting way. By providing legal government documents, they are able to prove to the reader these things really happened and the best part is that it is all free information available to the general public, which most people aren't even aware of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your assessments are interesting, especially since you explored the background to these sources. The third assessment, though, is not correct. We discussed that the Smoking Gun article is a satire so you might want to go back and read that one again. Otherwise, good job.
ReplyDeleteEach you say are credible sources, starting with the first. You only seem to research only one of the creators. The other might be known for outrageous scandals and lies. What are your opinions on the articles though. You seem to only talk about the authoritative state of the article. I would like to see more.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about court TV though, not even sure those court TV shows are even real yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you that you did a good job taking the time to look up the background on the authors but that seems like its all you did really. You talked to much about the authors but you also talked a little about the source. Its good that you had bacground info but you schould of kept it to a little less.
ReplyDeletealfonso rocha
You really took the time to check if these sources were reliable and authoritative sources. By doing the backround research you are really going beyond to make sure your information is crediable. But I would also have to agree that you did not really talk about the source itself and talked more about the authors and why you believed it was authoritative. Overall I think you did a great job and you can see that you took a lot of time in doing this and it helped you.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your first source; I was very interesting. I like how you went into great detail. You had some information on the topic and then you went into great depth on it. It truly showed that you want to cover all the different possibilities. Another thing that you could do, to find more information on your topic would be to research the other two guys. (Scott McLeod, and Jeff Bronman) For your second source you also went into a lot of detail. Finding the facts on Chris Walters was a really go idea. It is always good to get another persons opinion when you are trying to explain something. It seems like a good source to use for evidence. One question I have to ask you though, is do you agree with what Chris Walters is saying? Are you going to use his facts to make your argument stronger? Does he support you or does he contradict you? Your third source seemed good, but you might want to get more facts from it. You stated that all of the documents are “real and obtained through free information to the public,” but what does that mean? Where do the sources actually come from?
ReplyDelete- Sarah Dominguez