Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Digital Tool - Twitter

Digital Tool - Photos

Digital Tool - Surveillance cameras - Cell Towers

3 hours for information to spread

Facebook- Digital Tool

Twitter - Digital Tool

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

Note 1: Widespread access to the Internet and other electronic media has served as something of a double-edged sword with respect to plagiarism; the Web allows students to plagiarism with cut-and-paste ease, but also allows academics to more easily identify the source of the plagiarized material when plagiarism is suspected(Lyon, Barrett, and Malcolm 2006). Note 2: The Internet allow suspicious student writing to be more quickly compared to other sources using a standard internet search engine, leaving the detection of suspicious writing as the principle challenge. Note 3:  given that some systems now permit students to upload their own writing to check for plagiarism in advance of submitting assignments, rates of unintentional plagiarism may drop, making the remaining intentional plagiarism easier to detect. Note 4: Others argue that the adoption of a plagiarism-detection system will not only aid faculty in detecting plagiarism, but will serve as a deterrent to plagiarism in the first place. Note 5: For example, Kraemer (2008) has argued that students who are made aware that plagiarism-detection technologies are in use should, at a minimum, avoid intentionally copying from other sources because of the near certainty that they will be caught. Further, for those students who may unintentionally plagiarize out of ignorance about the rule of citation, the use of plagiarism-detection software may motivate them to better inform themselves about citations and to double-check their own papers for unintentional plagiarism.