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

About.com is a reliable source, using people in certain professions to answer questions about a subject. Page is updated daily, proper links and connections to show sources.

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 - There isn't a lot of content on this page. But what there is seems accurate and posted without bias. 2) Credibility - Since this is USA today posting an Associated Press article I would say this is a reliable source. 3) Critical Thinking - Using standard deductive reasoning I can safely assume that this article is valid. I heard about it earlier and it's on a trusted news site. 4) Copyright - This page was copyrighted in 2014. But the article itself was uploaded 8:21 PM EST. 5) Citation - This article was originally an Associated Press article and they sight that at the bottom as well as giving credit to the photographer of the picture they used. 6) Continuity - There isn't a lot of continuity problems as this article is from today. It can be updated but only by USA today staff. 7) Censorship - This page is moderated fully. You can't even post comments on this article. You can however join a community discussion if you sign up and agree to their Terms of service. 8) Connectivity - This link like many others allows users to click directly on links for additional articles. However this one also adds a link to repost it directly on social media pages. 9) Comparability - This article has been reposted and confirm by numerous sites. It seems to be originally an Associated Press article that by using Google you can get more information on. 10) - Context - Within the scope of the search for "Chris Pine, DUI" this is the exact article I was looking for. It is short and easy to read and digest without going into too many details. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 15, Content -15, Authority -10, Navigation -10, Experience -10, Multimedia -3. Treatment -7, Access -10, Miscellaneous - 8. Total:88 - Good.

This talks about how the wireless energy works.

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.