Group items tagged

The score for this article was an 81.2 based off of the criteria provided in the article "Ten C's for evaluating internet resources" by Richmond, Betsy; Everhart, Nancy; Auer, Nicole J. This is why this score was received: Currency (0 to 15 Points) The site has the date of last revision posted. Yes The site has been updated recently. Yes Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. No Total: 10 Content (0 to 15 Points) The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. No This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. No The information on the topic is thorough. No The information is accurate. Yes The purpose of the page is obvious. Yes The information is in good taste. Yes The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes Total: 8.6 I arrived at this by using 15 (total score) divided by 7 (number of questions) multiplied by 4 (number of criteria met) and rounded to the nearest tenth. I used this scoring system for all sections. Authority (0 to 10 Points) The authors are clearly identified. Yes The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. Yes There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. Yes You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Yes Total: 10 Navigation (0 to 10 Points) You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. Yes The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. Yes The links are easy to identify. No The links are logically grouped. No The layout is consistent from page to page. Yes There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. Yes The links are relevant to the subject. No The icons clearly represent what is intended. Yes Total: 6.3 Experience (0 to 10 Points) The page fulfills its intended purpose. Yes The page is worth the time. Yes The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Ye

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

very good search criteria here. explains how to narrow your search and validify information

The basic definition of Digital Literacy

Favorite definition of copyright! Copyright definition (2)

Forget the second definition of copyright, this is the best definition we can use!

This is very important. Much of the industry as a whole was against this file sharing system. There were actually more plaintiffs than solely A&M.

In essence this software was allowing a place for studio recorded music to be distributed for free over the internet for download.

The music companies won the case because Napster had no permission by the companies to allow uncharged distribution of their music.

In todays culture children at a young age learn from the media and whats on TV, and popular social networking sites. censorship has become all but null, information is a few keystrokes away.