How To Evaluate The Credibility Of Sources Of Information
Evaluating the Credibility of Sources of Information
MGT/521
November 15, 2012
Dr. Scott Goldberg
Evaluating the Credibility of Sources of Information
Evaluating the credibility of sources of information is critical to ensuring the validity of the information used as supporting evidence for research projects. There are no comparable quality control processes to ensure quality standards of material presented on the Web equal to those for printed works. When debating the credibility of the Website Wikipedia, Learning Team B examined numerous quality indicators of Web information. The deduction that the Learning Team eventually made was that Wikipedia cannot be considered a credible source of information. The evidence to support …show more content…
The foundation’s only motivation
as stated in its goals was to collect and develop educational content to disseminate, globally, at
no charge. The site supports no advertising, so it can be inferred that it is serving no special
interests. Further research of the site content (3-4 different topics) did not reveal obvious cultural
or political agendas.
Additional research into the site content revealed the following explicit statements (Foundation, Wikipedia:About, 2012, para. 1):
a) “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay.”
b) “Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases.”
c) “Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”
The sight ownership insight, including a founder whose background is in
finance and the adult entertainment business vice the discipline of research on academic, general
interest, or popular topics, is quite discerning. The very loose content source and characteristic
facts are equally …show more content…
Style, Tone, and Currency
The move from Impartiality to the evaluating the Style, Tone, and Currency
characteristics revealed positive results. The material is clearly focused and coherent. The tone is
not dispassionate, conversational, nor is it hysterical. It is in “matter of fact,” statement format.
The language is neither inflammatory, frivolous, nor full of superlatives. The basic rules of
grammar are followed. The material can be summarized or paraphrased. Finally,
the information of the site is updated regularly.
Conclusion
The site’s self-admission of critical quality flaws in content left us no alternative but to
deduct that the site is not a credible source of information. The admissions themselves are not
readily evident to casual readers, as locating them requires the readers to be savvy enough to drill
down into the imbedded links of the main page. We feel in necessary to point out that
MGT/521
November 15, 2012
Dr. Scott Goldberg
Evaluating the Credibility of Sources of Information
Evaluating the credibility of sources of information is critical to ensuring the validity of the information used as supporting evidence for research projects. There are no comparable quality control processes to ensure quality standards of material presented on the Web equal to those for printed works. When debating the credibility of the Website Wikipedia, Learning Team B examined numerous quality indicators of Web information. The deduction that the Learning Team eventually made was that Wikipedia cannot be considered a credible source of information. The evidence to support …show more content…
The foundation’s only motivation
as stated in its goals was to collect and develop educational content to disseminate, globally, at
no charge. The site supports no advertising, so it can be inferred that it is serving no special
interests. Further research of the site content (3-4 different topics) did not reveal obvious cultural
or political agendas.
Additional research into the site content revealed the following explicit statements (Foundation, Wikipedia:About, 2012, para. 1):
a) “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay.”
b) “Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases.”
c) “Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.”
The sight ownership insight, including a founder whose background is in
finance and the adult entertainment business vice the discipline of research on academic, general
interest, or popular topics, is quite discerning. The very loose content source and characteristic
facts are equally …show more content…
Style, Tone, and Currency
The move from Impartiality to the evaluating the Style, Tone, and Currency
characteristics revealed positive results. The material is clearly focused and coherent. The tone is
not dispassionate, conversational, nor is it hysterical. It is in “matter of fact,” statement format.
The language is neither inflammatory, frivolous, nor full of superlatives. The basic rules of
grammar are followed. The material can be summarized or paraphrased. Finally,
the information of the site is updated regularly.
Conclusion
The site’s self-admission of critical quality flaws in content left us no alternative but to
deduct that the site is not a credible source of information. The admissions themselves are not
readily evident to casual readers, as locating them requires the readers to be savvy enough to drill
down into the imbedded links of the main page. We feel in necessary to point out that