Name: KEY
Period:
Date:
World History – Mrs. Schenck
#14
“Reliable Web Sources”
FQ: What makes something reliable?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_EAxomGhNY&feature=youtu.be
*We are only discussing web sources here. You will learn about other sources in the
library this year. DESTINY is you best friend! Use it all the time to avoid determining
whether a source is reliable.
1. What does “reliable” mean?
- Trustworthy
- A source where the facts are true and that contains little bias/opinions
2. Why does it matter if you use reliable sources?
- When you write something, your put your name and reputation on the line. Don’t
you want to be considered trustworthy?
3. What are things to look for to tell if a web source is reliable? Use clear bullet points.
- Is this in official website? (news, government, university, etc.)
- Who is the author? (are they academic, etc.)
- Are the author’s sources cited?
- Is it up to date?
- Is it appropriate to my topic?
- Is there bias?
- What’s the author’s purpose?
- Can we cross check this source?
Analyzing Sources for Reliability
Use the links on my website. READ the article - then analyze the source for reliability.
Source 1: CNN ARTICLE
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/africa/homo-naledi-human-relative-species/index.html
1. Look at the domain. Is it an .org or a .com site, with ads, etc.?
- .com news site -> CNN
- Links to other articles and some adds present
2. Who is the author? What can you find out about them?
- David McKenzie and Hamilton Wende (you can click on the name a see he’s an
international correspondent for CNN in South Africa, has won awards)
3. Are sources cited? Where did the author get their information? Can you cross check
the information? Are there links to other sites, and what are they?
- Photos are cited from National Geographic and a link to NG article provided
- Cites CNN Nick Thompson
- Author is in the video, so he did personal interviews
4. Is the information relevant and up to date? How do you know?
- The page was updated on 9/10/15, so it is a year-old now
- Could possibly find a more recent source
5. What’s the author’s purpose? (Persuade, inform, entertain, sell something, etc.) How
can you tell?
- Inform us about a new human species
- He reports mostly facts and quotes from the archaeologists
- He does not use loaded or biased language
6. Does the layout present the information in a professional/easy to navigate manner?
- Somewhat – the ads and additional stories to the side are only a little distracting
7. Is there any evidence of bias on the site?
- Only a little at the end when the author says no one can dispute how significant the
find is
8. Is this source “reliable”? Explain.
- YES: from a credible news source, reputable author, sources cited, little bias,
facts are clear and supported by evidence
Source 2: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC BLOG
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/17/what-can-we-learn-from-homo-naledis-skull/
1. Look at the domain. Is it an .org or a .com site, with ads, etc.?
- .com -> National Geographic BLOG
- Comments section at the bottom
- Links to other material on the blog and National Geographic
2. Who is the author? What can you find out about them?
- Andrew Howley (links to his bio)
- He’s a member of National Geographic Society and party of the Rising Start
Expedition that found Homo naledi.
3. Are sources cited? Where did the author get their information? Can you cross check
the information? Are there links to other sites, and what are they?
- Not really – just says sketches and notes come from conversations and workshops
of the expedition
4. Is the information relevant and up to date? How do you know?
- Posted 9/17/15, so a year ago
5. What’s the author’s purpose? (Persuade, inform, entertain, sell something, etc.) How
can you tell?
- This is a BLOG
- To share personal ideas and inform readers about the new human discovery
6. Does the layout present the information in a professional/easy to navigate manner?
- Yes, but some of the language is sarcastic/funny and meant to entertain as well as
educate
7. Is there any evidence of bias on the site?
- Maybe – on the side it gives the people who funded the research and some of the
funding came from National Geographic
8. Is this source “reliable”? Explain.
- Not for research. Blogs are not credible sources because they only show one
person’s opinions and sources are not really cited. It does have a credible author,
though we should verify his blog with the original research.
Source 3: WIKIPEDIA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Star_Cave#2013_and_2014_excavations
1. Look at the domain. Is it an .org or a .com site, with ads, etc.?
- Wikipedia.org
- We know ANYONE with an account can edit the information
2. Who is the author? What can you find out about them?
- None listed
- ANYONE can edit
3. Are sources cited? Where did the author get their information? Can you cross check
the information? Are there links to other sites, and what are they?
- Yes, cited and linked at the bottom
- But parts of the article say that a citation is still needed
4. Is the information relevant and up to date? How do you know?
- Last modified 8/9/16, so very up to date
5. What’s the author’s purpose? (Persuade, inform, entertain, sell something, etc.) How
can you tell?
- To inform and present facts about the expedition
6. Does the layout present the information in a professional/easy to navigate manner?
- Yes, not as many pictures
7. Is there any evidence of bias on the site?
- Yes, in the opinions and reactions sections
8. Is this source “reliable”? Explain.
- No. We don’t know the authors or their true purpose. Citations are missing and
there may be bias. Wikipedia may provide useful link to original sources, but we
should always start with these original sources to verify their reliability.