Group items tagged

Interesting!

Good examples!

This has one of the best definitions of Disinformation that I was able to find.

The best definition as it relates to the internet and not so much as to politics-

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

Interesting article!!!!!!

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

Page 2 has a para that is s a supporting statement to Fact 2

Note 1: Regardless of this evidence showing that Rohn possessed many different forms of false identification, the court reversed Rohn's conviction because the government was unable to show that Rohn "knowingly possess[ed] with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents"^'' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3).^^ Note 2: n unlawful use because Rohn had not demonstrated a lawful one."^^ The court stated that the government tried to convict Rohn under a statute that Congress did not write, and that because the government did not technically meet all elements of the statute, the conviction had to be overturned. Thus, even though the government had charged an individual who had obviously stolen and used many different identities, the government was unable to convict this individual based on the technical language in the statute. Note 3: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Petitioner, holding that the government must prove that a defendant knew that the "means of identification" he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used did, in fact, belong to another person.'**^  Note 4: Thus, because the government could not prove that the petitioner technically knew that the identification numbers belonged to other people, the Supreme Court reversed the aggravated identity theft charges.'*'