Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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 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. 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

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.

legal information technology explained in definiation

Interesting article!!!!!!