Group items tagged

Very Helpful. Thank you.

safety has become a major issue with social networks all over the web.

with a bit of reading, the article is not bad!

This article is credible because it was published in a professional journal, it was written by faculty members who are identified appropriately, it has good use of citations and references, and it has good supporting charts and graphics.

The score for this article was a 42.2 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. No The purpose of the page is obvious. No The information is in good taste. Yes The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Yes Total: 4.3 Authority (0 to 10 Points)  The authors are clearly identified. No The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. No There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. No You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. No Total: 0 Navigation (0 to 10 Points)  You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. No 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. No 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. No Total: 2.5 Experience (0 to 10 Points)  The page fulfills its intended purpose. No The page is worth the time. No The page's presentation is eye-catching. Yes The site engages the visitor to spend time there. No Total: 2.5 Multimedia (0 to 10 Points)  Sound, graphics or video enhance the site's message. No Total: 0 Treatment (0 to 10 Points)  Any biases towards the subject matter can be easily identified. No

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.

The basic definition of Digital Literacy

every time i see "business ethics" i think of billy madison!! we'll structured article! future read!

This article is very credible. It is written as a research paper and published in a scholarly journal. Information included is based on second hand literature review which is sited in the article.

This article is credible. While I am not interested in learning about nuclear education the fact that it is a distance education program featuring on line tools is relevant. This is a well written article from a professional journal. It is authored by professors and includes cited references.

The score for this article was an 82 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. Yes. This article is useful to me because I am originally from the city of Detroit and plan to use my career success as a resource to help promote change in my hometown. 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: 10.7 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. No You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Yes Total: 7.5 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. Yes 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: 7.5 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. Yes Total: 10 Multimedia (0 to 10

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 - The intent of the content was to inform the readers that Sen. John McCaine thinks we need a more descisive plan for Russia. The author is clearly Identified. The content is serious. It was published on 03/16/2014 at 9AM PST. That would make it the most current edition. That is important because in the digital age information can change rapidly.

2) Credibility - The author is identifible but his reliability leaves me questioning. His only previous article listed on yahoo is one about Katy Perry's new cd being deemed a "Biohazard". The content itself is credible and posted on a valid news site. I just don't feel that he would be an authority on the matter.

3) Critical Thinking - I can identify the web page and have used it in the past. Also I see that there have similar articles posted on other news sites about this. Also he sites both The New York Times and CNN as references in the article.

4) Copyright - This page is copyrighted by Yahoo news. Any graphical contect is referenced to the original site it came from.

5) Citation - This website contains may references and they credit all of them. From the video being from Routers to the direct link to a NWY article.

6) Continuity - While it's true that the internet can change information in a manner of minutes. This article doesn't appear to have been changed since the time of publishing.

7) Censorship - This article is moderated to a degree. It's on Yahoonews so it has to be sent in and verified before publishing.

8) Connectivity - This is a publically available news site on the internet that doesn't require log in to view.

9) Comparaility - This page itself doesn't have a paper copy itself. however The New York Times (referenced in the article) does.

10) - Context - Contexually this was a valid article as my topic for this search was the US and Russia. This does have an open forum for comments to be posted after the article.

Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -10, Authority -5, Navigation -10, Experience -8, Multimedia -10. Treatment -7, Access -5, Miscellaneous - 15. Total: 85 - Good.