Group items tagged

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The content in this article is remarkably good. It seems fair and unbiased and is written as a serious post. It provides details on the facts and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the loss of this plane 2) Credibility - CNN by itself is a reliable source. But also they provide links to outside articles on the page to corroborate their posting of the story. 3) Critical Thinking - Based on the information in the article you can deduce a lot about the plane and the issues with the search. I helps you think by mentioning important details and providing links to search for more information. 4) Copyright - This page itself was copyrighted in 2014. This article itself was posted on Sun March 16th, 2014. Meaning that it was updated today. 5) Citation - This site cites its references and provides links to them for additional information. 6) Continuity - Because of CNN's informational network this site can be updated within hours if not minutes. This up to date information provides room for new information to enter the article. 7) Censorship - This is posted and maintained by CNN so there is most likely some degree of censorship. But the comments can be posted immediately. However, if your post is tagged as offensive they will remove it. 8) Connectivity - This site is vastly interconnected both with corresponding articles on CNN.com and outside articles. It's easy to use and Easy to navigate. 9) Comparability - This page can be compared to many other pages. In fact, this article is the center of many websites referencing its information for reposting. 10) - Context - The scope of this page in context is a little biased. It tries to hint at the fact that the plane could have been hijacked and focuses on that speculation only giving a slight reference that the Ministry of Transportation has said that they aren't pursuing it that way but are looking into all of the information on why it deviated. Web Page Evaluation: Cur

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible that someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means that it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce that the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm that this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible that someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means that it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce that the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm that this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Incredibly so. It not only had links to the web article but also links and information on the entire company. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Not directly but through links to the company's press releases. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. The time stamp on the article is March 12, 2014. It doesn't appear to be revised after that date. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Not really. This one is pretty good because it covers not only basic information about the company but also links to the content I was looking for directly. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. No but it does have the page it is from. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. Not for the person who wrote the article but the financial institution that it came from. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes from Reuters Knowledge Direct. 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. This site is often updated. In this case mostly in a timely fashion. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. It still isn't real time but it is pretty close. This article was uploaded just a couple days ago. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes. At least as it relates to the discussion of gay rights. This article has more information on the whole company. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. This article is factual instead of guiding towards a particular view. Because it focuses on the company as a whole and not the current debate it maintains its neutrality. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not within the scope of this article. Because this article just dic

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes. This article covers all the same information that I found in previous searches. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic? i. Yes. This article covers all the pertinent information. The problem is that they make light of the situation and put jokes in the article. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. March 12, 2014 was when this article was published. It does not look like it has been revised since then. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. It doesn't include the fact that he plead guilty and was fined $79 for it. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. Tony Hicks b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No, but it is assumed that he is a reporter for the Constra Costa Times. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It the San Jose Mercury News (California) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes this site is maintained and updated regularly. Just not in real time. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It is only a couple days old so other than a couple details it is still accurate. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. It does mostly. The comparable article I found was a little newer and covered his trail, plea, and fine. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes. The author tries to make jokes throughout the article ruining his credibility as a source. In a serious article jokes and whit are negatives. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. There is a few pieces of information that could have been covered that was found in the comparable article. Such as his plea and the fine. However this has the name of

I located a copyright which is a good hint of a credible source.

Interesting article!!!!!!

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. It seems to be both accurate and thorough. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. No. It covered more information about the church and protests and counter protest. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This article was published on March 3 2014 and does not show if it has been revised. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Not in the context of this article. It is pretty much a recording of events that happened in the past. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. Brittany Woolsey b. Can we see their job title or description? i. Yes Staff Writer for the Orange County Register c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Orange County Register 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. The internet site for LexisNexis is continuously updated but not kept in real time. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? Not up-to-date but close. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes. It also has external links for more information 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. The article just lays out the facts instead of painting the church in a negative light. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Yes, this article was good if you were looking for just the activities and description of the Westborough Baptist Church. But it does not contain anything about Rev. Fred Phelps Sr.'s medical condition.