Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Twitter shares up-this article gave more content and information.

10 Currency-Not current, no updates, can be used in classroom setting 7 Content is credible. the story can be useful to students to educate. The information is valid.  8 Authority- Authors' names are at the top of article, no links to contact author, Authors' Occupation is visible 7 Navigation-No links relevant to topic. everything clear and readable,  10 Experience-Fulfills it's intended purpose.  very engaging to me.  0 Multimedia-no multimedia  7 Treatment- Bias toward Democrats,   6 Access-Easy to access page, no relevant links to help further investigate,    7 Miscellaneous-no per-use cost, no inquiring of private info, can be printed with no issues 

WiTricity Corporation make devices that allows wireless charging.

wow wiki did an amazing job on this one!!! i could hilite the whole page!

the content of this article has been proven over and over again and everytime you watch one of your favorite viral videos made by an 8th grader!

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

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible That someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means That it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce That the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm That this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

1) Content - The intent of the content was to demonstrate the encroaching illness of Rev Fred Phelps. 2) Credibility - This seems to be a fairly credible source as the write (Doyle Murphy) also writes for the New York Daily News. 3) Critical Thinking - I am familiar with Rev Fred Phelps SR. from watching the protests of his church group on the internet. That being said, I have also seen numerous false death reports. Because of his (and his organization') reputation it is possible That someone is lying to create disbelief. 4) Copyright - The site itself was copyrighted in 2013, but this article itself was uploaded Sunday, March 16, 2014, 1:53 PM 5) Citation - This article includes citations from where it received the information and pictures. They also provide links in the article to easily access the original text. 6) Continuity - This article can be updated but only by the site admins itself. That means That it most likely has the most accurate information. 7) Censorship - This article appears completely uncensored. It includes some graphic language and images. Because of these points I can deduce That the facts are not altered. Also there is a moderated comments section but those posts appear uncensored 8) Connectivity - The site was easy to find and navigate to. It can handle multiple users at a time without issue. It contains links to the other parts of the page depending on if you want to continue reading on a different topic. 9) Comparability - I checked a couple different websites to see if they had a similar article. And they do. By checking other sites I can confirm That this is most likely a fact. 10) - Context - The context in this article tries very hard to just be neutral and factual about a man with such a horrible reputation. It does so decently, but the comments at the bottom do not. They are as inflammatory as some of the protest signs Fred Phelps is commonly known for. Web Page Evaluation: Currency - 10, Content

For the first time in 30 YEARS!

This talks about how the wireless energy works.

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.

Note 1: Regardless of this evidence showing that Rohn possessed many different forms of false identification, the court reversed Rohn's conviction because the government was unable to show that Rohn "knowingly possess[ed] with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents"^'' as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3).^^ Note 2: n unlawful use because Rohn had not demonstrated a lawful one."^^ The court stated that the government tried to convict Rohn under a statute that Congress did not write, and that because the government did not technically meet all elements of the statute, the conviction had to be overturned. Thus, even though the government had charged an individual who had obviously stolen and used many different identities, the government was unable to convict this individual based on the technical language in the statute. Note 3: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Petitioner, holding that the government must prove that a defendant knew that the "means of identification" he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used did, in fact, belong to another person.'**^  Note 4: Thus, because the government could not prove that the petitioner technically knew that the identification numbers belonged to other people, the Supreme Court reversed the aggravated identity theft charges.'*'

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 has one of the best definitions of Disinformation that I was able to find.

The best definition as it relates to the internet and not so much as to politics-

The basic definition of Digital Literacy

Very Helpful. Thank you.

Thank you again Wikipedia!

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.

I believe that we establish a digital citizenship when we leave behind digital footprints everytime we use our computers or smart devices to gain access to the internet to work, communicate or stay in contact with our friends, coworkers, and family members.

Specified definition of Digital Citizenship

1. Digital Access:   full electronic participation in society. 2. Digital Commerce:   electronic buying and selling of goods. 3. Digital Communication:   electronic exchange of information. 4. Digital Literacy:   process of teaching and learning about technology and the use of technology. 5. Digital Etiquette:   electronic standards of conduct or procedure. 6. Digital Law:   electronic responsibility for actions and deeds 7. Digital Rights & Responsibilities:   those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world. 8. Digital Health & Wellness:   physical and psychological well-being in a digital technology world. 9. Digital Security (self-protection):   electronic precautions to guarantee safety.

one page, lots of useful information!