GCCCD WEB Search Evaluation Exercise Discussion – Description
Week One Discussion 2: Web Source Evaluation
Must post first.
Subscribe
Week One Discussion 2: Web Source Evaluation (and citation practice)
In order to write your Project Introduction, you’ll need to develop a general sense — or “working knowledge” — of your topic. These days just about everyone accomplishes this with open web searching. Open-web searching will lead you to sources that vary wildly in quality and type. Depending on your topic, much of what you find on the web might be types of sources that pre-date the web, such as newspaper, magazine, and journal articles. You’ll also find types of sources that didn’t have exact counterparts before the web, such as personal web pages, blogs, and advocacy sites.
In this discussion, we’re going to look at the latter type of web sources–sources that force us to wrestle a bit with the complexities of web source evaluation. So, don’t use academic-article databases or news sources that are well known and that have been around since before the internet–for example: USA Today, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer, CNN, Time, etc. (You may not yet be familiar with what is and isn’t a major, longstanding news source, but a quick Wikipedia search should help. For example, if you look up The Philadelphia Inquirer on Wikipedia, you’ll see that it was founded in 1829.)
To get started, do some web searching using terms from your research question and any synonyms or additional search terms that proved helpful to you in the Web Search Activity (or in case you did the optional practice work for this assignment: Do a News Search).
Copy down the URLs of a few web pages that contain information on your topic. Then choose one page to focus on in your discussion post. It’s okay if you have reservations about the reliability of this source–the purpose here is mainly to ask questions about sources.
Post
Your post should address all four of the following:
What is the home page of the main site on which this page appears (provide the URL), and what can you learn about the main site?
What are the author’s qualifications for writing on this topic? (If no author/s, write “no author listed” and skip to the next question.)
Should this source be considered “reliable,” “expert,” or both? Explain.
How would this source be cited in APA. Include a full citation. (Scroll down for web citation examples. If you’re an English major, go ahead and use MLA format instead.)
Here are some strategies you can use to answer questions 1 through 3:
If there is no link to the home page on the page you are viewing, try drilling back in the URL to the site’s domain abbreviation (com, edu, mil, org, gov, etc.). For example:
Look for an author biography on the page, or via a link.
Look for links with names like “About” and “FAQ” that are likely to lead you to additional information about the site.
Do a web search for the author.
Do a web search for the site by its name, or by the name of its sponsoring organization. (To filter out the site itself in the latter search, use -site (example: “yahoo voices” -site:voices.yahoo.com))
Search LexisNexis or ProQuest Newsstand to see if/how journalists have described the organization or author in news stories.
WEB SOURCE CITATION HELP
Citing web sources can be tricky. Here is the basic format: APA Style Guide 7e: Electronic Resources: Webpage Guidelines
Reply to classmates.
In your replies to two classmates, build on their insights about the source. Be sure to follow the URLs provided in your classmates’ original posts and check out the pages. It’s likely that their initial write-ups will help you notice additional things about the sites. Your second-level review might even lead you to propose modifications to the original poster’s assessment of the site. This is fine and even expected. Our best observations and ideas emerge through conversation rather than through isolated study. If you can provide citation help, please do (but please don’t make citation mechanics the main focus of your response.)
Take the time to develop replies that genuinely extend the analysis.
Example of an inadequate reply. This reply does not add to the original poster’s analysis.
I checked out the page and I agree that this is a reliable source. I also agree with you about the homepage. I really enjoy your topic, and I can’t wait to learn more about it!
Example of a better reply. This reply adds to the original poster’s analysis.
I’m not sure about this source. It’s sort of weird that better-known organizations are listed as “allies.” The site doesn’t really explain what that means, exactly. The “About” page uses the term “partner,” but this section is different from the “allies” list on the home page because no organizations are mentioned by name. It just says, “We also partner with other organizations to raise awareness of the problem.” So things are left sort of vague. Also, I see what you mean about the dead links on the page. They make the content seem sort of old and neglected. While the intentions and aims seem to be good, I don’t think the source would be considered reliable by most people. But it is perfect for this assignment as we are supposed to be looking for all different kinds of web sources.
The post GCCCD WEB Search Evaluation Exercise Discussion first appeared on .
