Group items tagged

Interesting!

Good examples!

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

Internet collaboration is a tool who allows a group to work together.

Critical Thinking author id, publisher id,

copyright site

copyright contributor credited

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. Yes, very much so. It paints a positive image on the tragedy. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. Yes, it focuses on information about the plane and the information surrounding its disappearance. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. This Article was updated 03/16/2014. There is no record of it being altered or revised since upload. b. Is there information that could be updated? i. No. Because this article was uploaded and published today the information is current. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes, Larry McShane b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. But it is assumed that he is a reporter for the New York Daily News c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. New York Daily News, Page 5 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. Yes. This site is updated often to maintain the most accurate information. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. Yes. It may not be bleeding edge down to the second up to date, but it is at best only a few hours old. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. No. Not in the article itself. It does provide options to search for additional articles and provides a way to narrow your search 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. Yes, but not in a bad way. It was about how hope hasn't been lost in the search for the plane. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. Not currently. Because of how new the article is there isn't really any more information on it. If it included all the information available it would be come hard to read.

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.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. This article seems to be accurate and thorough. It's well written. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. This article answered basic questions on my topic but to the exact information I was looking for. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. September 26th, 2013 b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Yes there was, this article focused on more on Russian oil running low and how the Kremlin was looking towards Siberian shale to replenish it and not at all about the interactions of the US in that regard. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. His name is Guy Chazan. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It originated in the Financial Times (London, England) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. For the most part yes. It seems that it is often update but not current. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. No. It does update but not often enough to provide up-to-date information. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes it does at least about the value of Russian oil. It doesn't contain anything about how people are reacting to the current foreign policy from President Obama. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. It seems unbiased and direct in its point of view. It doesn't take either side, but still relates all the information properly. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. It didn't have any information on the actions or reaction of the US or the world.

1) Content and Credibility a. Is the article accurate & thorough i. This article seems to be accurate and thorough. It's well written. b. Does it answer your questions about the topic i. This article answered basic questions on my topic but to the exact information I was looking for. 2) Currency a. What is the date or timestamp of the article? Has it been revised? i. September 26th, 2013 b. Is there information that could be updated? i. Yes there was, this article focused on more on Russian oil running low and how the Kremlin was looking towards Siberian shale to replenish it and not at all about the interactions of the US in that regard. 3) Authority and Credibility a. Is the author identified? i. Yes. His name is Guy Chazan. b. Can we see their job title or description? i. No. c. Can you see where the article originates? i. Yes. It originated in the Financial Times (London, England) 4) Continuity and Comparability a. Will the internet site be maintained and updated? i. For the most part yes. It seems that it is often update but not current. b. Can you rely on this source over time to provide up-to-date information? i. No. It does update but not often enough to provide up-to-date information. c. Does the internet site contain complete information as found in the comparable article? i. Yes it does at least about the value of Russian oil. It doesn't contain anything about how people are reacting to the current foreign policy from President Obama. 5) Biases and Censorship a. Does that article seem biased in any way in its point of view? i. No. It seems unbiased and direct in its point of view. It doesn't take either side, but still relates all the information properly. b. Is there information included or not included that is found in the comparable article? i. It didn't have any information on the actions or reaction of the US or the world.

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

Collaborating via internet helps information pass more quickly than doing it verbally. It also insures information will not be lost.

The Document was written/updated within the last 5 years making it up to date.

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.'*'

Great definition of both a wiki and blog.

Wiki defined