Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Interesting article!!!!!!

Digital security definition (2)

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

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. 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 - 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.

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

WEB PAGE EVALUATION Currency: 15 The site has the date of last revision posted. The site has been updated recently. Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. Content: 15 The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. The information on the topic is thorough. The information is accurate. The purpose of the page is obvious. The information is in good taste. The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Authority: 10 The authors are clearly identified. The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Navigation: 7 You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. The links are easy to identify. The links are logically grouped. The laYout is consistent from page to page. There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. The links are relevant to the subject. The icons clearly represent what is intended. Experience: 10 The page fulfills its intended purpose. The page is worth the time. The page's presentation is eye-catching. The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Multimedia 1 Sound, graphics or video enhance the site's message. Treatment: 10 Any biases towards the subject matter can be easily identified. The page is free from stereotyping. The page is age appropriate for content and vocabulary for its intended audience. Access 5 You can connect quickly to the page. The page is available through search engines. The page loads quickly. You can choose whether to download smaller images, text-only, or non-frame versions. Miscellaneous: 15 There are no per-use costs involved. Interactions asking for private information are secured. Information can be printed wi

WEB PAGE EVALUATION Currency: 15 The site has the date of last revision posted. The site has been updated recently. Frequency of planned updates and revisions is stated. Content: 15 The information will be useful to our curriculum and/or student interest. This information is not available in any other format elsewhere in my library. The information on the topic is thorough. The information is accurate. The purpose of the page is obvious. The information is in good taste. The page uses correct spelling and grammar. Authority: 10 The authors are clearly identified. The authors and/or maintainers of the site are authorities in their field. There is a way to contact the author (s) via e-mail or traditional mail. You can easily tell from the domain name where the page originates. Navigation: 10 You can tell from the first page how the site is organized and what options are available. The type styles and background make the page clear and readable. The links are easy to identify. The links are logically grouped. The laYout is consistent from page to page. There is a link back to the home page on each supporting page. The links are relevant to the subject. The icons clearly represent what is intended. Experience: 10 The page fulfills its intended purpose. The page is worth the time. The page's presentation is eye-catching. The site engages the visitor to spend time there. Multimedia: 9 Sound, graphics or video enhance the site's message. Treatment: 10 Any biases towards the subject matter can be easily identified. The page is free from stereotyping. The page is age appropriate for content and vocabulary for its intended audience. Access: 5 You can connect quickly to the page. The page is available through search engines. The page loads quickly. You can choose whether to download smaller images, text-only, or non-frame versions. Miscellaneous: 15 There are no per-use costs involved. Interactions asking for private information are secured. Information can be printed

there are different types of digital native also as shown in this passage

YouTube Views is new deciding factor when determining top songs in the country.

Creates opportunities for unknown artists that would not otherwise have been there.

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.