The Wikipedia Problem: Evaluating And Trusting Sources In A Digital Age
Who Says, Chapter Five: “The Wikipedia Problem: Evaluating and Trusting Sources in a Digital Age” By Deborah Holdstein and Danielle Aquillne
The author stating how sites like Google and Wikipedia could have more negative effect than positive: “[…] it’s also important to consider the ways that both Google and Wikipedia have in some ways been a detriment to our intellectual lives.” (51)
A comparison to convenience vs. creditability: “[…] that is, good research takes time, and, while information may be easier to access in a digital era, the scholarly processes necessary to produce credible and valuable academic writing haven’t changed much at all. In fact, the ability to discern the quality and appropriateness of information is more necessary …show more content…
Does it need to be?” (63)
• “Does the source provide bibliographical data?” (64)
• “Has this source been cited by other writers?” (64)
• “Is the argument reasonable?” (65)
Checklist including concepts such as creditability, accuracy, reasonableness, and support to help evaluate the information (65)
The purpose of this chapter is to help the reader understand effective techniques dealing with scholarly resources, evaluating source creditability, and critically analyzing the origin of particular information in a digital age (66)
Who Says, Chapter Six: “What Counts and Why? Finding and Engaging Sources” By Deborah Holdstein and Danielle …show more content…
The purpose of this chapter was to help illustrate the importance of understanding different types of sources, their different purposes, and how to effectively generate different type of data (86)
Food: A Reader for Writers: “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable” by Jon Entine and JoAnna Wendel
The authors includes quotes in the beginning of the chapter describing anit-GMO stances (83)
Reference to major internal science research: “Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies […] in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.” (83)
A point is reemphasized that researchers couldn’t find a single credible example showing that genetically modified foods pose harms to animals or humans (84)
Counter perspective on GMOs mentioned by the authors: “The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.” (84)
The in-depth analysis of GMOs described: “Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies”
The author stating how sites like Google and Wikipedia could have more negative effect than positive: “[…] it’s also important to consider the ways that both Google and Wikipedia have in some ways been a detriment to our intellectual lives.” (51)
A comparison to convenience vs. creditability: “[…] that is, good research takes time, and, while information may be easier to access in a digital era, the scholarly processes necessary to produce credible and valuable academic writing haven’t changed much at all. In fact, the ability to discern the quality and appropriateness of information is more necessary …show more content…
Does it need to be?” (63)
• “Does the source provide bibliographical data?” (64)
• “Has this source been cited by other writers?” (64)
• “Is the argument reasonable?” (65)
Checklist including concepts such as creditability, accuracy, reasonableness, and support to help evaluate the information (65)
The purpose of this chapter is to help the reader understand effective techniques dealing with scholarly resources, evaluating source creditability, and critically analyzing the origin of particular information in a digital age (66)
Who Says, Chapter Six: “What Counts and Why? Finding and Engaging Sources” By Deborah Holdstein and Danielle …show more content…
The purpose of this chapter was to help illustrate the importance of understanding different types of sources, their different purposes, and how to effectively generate different type of data (86)
Food: A Reader for Writers: “2000+ Reasons Why GMOs Are Safe to Eat and Environmentally Sustainable” by Jon Entine and JoAnna Wendel
The authors includes quotes in the beginning of the chapter describing anit-GMO stances (83)
Reference to major internal science research: “Every major international science body in the world has reviewed multiple independent studies […] in coming to the consensus conclusion that GMO crops are safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.” (83)
A point is reemphasized that researchers couldn’t find a single credible example showing that genetically modified foods pose harms to animals or humans (84)
Counter perspective on GMOs mentioned by the authors: “The conclusions are also striking because European governments, Italy in particular, have not been as embracing of genetically modified crops as has North and South America, although the consensus of European scientists has been generally positive.” (84)
The in-depth analysis of GMOs described: “Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies”