Course:SOIL550/Jan 26
Exercise: Evaluating Online Information
Jan. 26, 2015
Your Task:
Post links to two websites on this Wiki Page (below). You will have to log in with your CWL in order to edit the Wiki page or make any additions.
- One that you consider to be a credible source of information, and
- One that you do not consider to be credible.
In addition to the link, please provide (in 50 words or less) your name and your reasoning for why you chose these sites.
Suggestion: Consider a website that you may have come across when researching your Major Projects, or a past report or assignment. Try not to use a direct example from the peer-reviewed literature, but soemthing that is more openly available.
Please post your examples and reasoning before 5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 27th, so that they can be accessed and reviewed before class on Wednesday. Some of these examples will be discussed in class.
Credible Examples
Naomi's Example
http://extension.psu.edu/plants/nutrient-management/educational/soil-fertility/managing-phosphorus-for-crop-production Penn State Extension Services has an article that breaks down phosphorous dynamics and management considerations in a more accessible way than academic journals. There are no references but I'm inclined to treat this like a textbook. I believe that the source is credibility being formally affiliated with Penn State University....Maybe I'll be proved wrong?
Adam's Example
http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/largehydro.html Though the actual layout of this website seems a bit dated, I believe it is a credible source of information. Works are thoroughly cited, the qualifications of the authors are suitable, and the writing style is professional.
Acadia's Example:
http://new.unep.org/climatechange/NewHome/tabid/794594/Default.aspx This is a professional looking website created by a very well known organization. It is also available in multiple languages which for some reason makes it seem credible.
Nina's Example
http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/ This is the type of webpage I would like to discuss. To me it appears credible, but, has very little in the way of assurances to that effect.
Erika's Example:
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/green-infrastructure.html This is a fairly standard example of the government type pages we look at for assignments.
Adrienne's Example:
Here is a website that I used a lot in my career. Although the format is dated and clunky to navigate, it seems credible as it's the government website for water quality guidelines! http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/wq_guidelines.html
Michelle's Example:
http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/ If I'm trying to decide whether a site is credible or not, one of the first things I look at is the "about us" section. It usually can provide a little bit more context about where the information is coming from and whether it could possibly be biased or not. For this website, I see that is supported and funded by the Agriculture Council of BC as well as the federal and provincial government agriculture ministries. I would trust it.
Not Credible Examples
Naomi's Example
http://www.cwn-rce.ca/assets/resources/powerpoint/CWR-2013-Presentations/VanderGulik-Ted-FINAL.pdf I thought that this is an interesting example. Although I recognize the name of the individual who created the presentation (a professional in the field, he'll be speaking at seminar on Friday) I won't cite this as a source.
Adam's Example
http://www.txses.org/solar/content/solar-energy-facts-you-should-know The “Texas Energy Society”. Article has a lot of very specific facts but no information sources. The organization seems largely based in outreach initiatives, authors are not necessarily credible to comment on such technical information. The website itself is not so professional.
Acadia's Example:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/11/20/only-50-scientists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study Blog appears in very large letters at the top of the sight. This always makes me skeptical about what I am going to read. I am also skeptical of websites that have advertisements in the middle of the content.
Nina's:
http://www.lenntech.com/processes/surface/surface-water.htm Although I'm sure there are facts on this site, I am always suspicious when they are on a company website
Erika's Example:
http://thinktwice.com I am 'pro-vaccine' for kids and this site seems to be based on fear; they also have a section for 'emotional responses'. It also uses the word fact and I am pretty sure they aren't using real facts!
Adrienne's Example:
Like many of you, I am a dog owner, and I also like to read up on the latest news for pet health. Here is a magazine that is widely viewed as a good resource for dog owners, and looks fancy and trustworthy. Although sometimes the topics they cover are worth knowing more about, when I read it as a scientist I can't help but notice the sweeping statements, lack of references to actual studies, and inflammatory language! http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/playing-with-our-pets-lives/
Michelle's Example
http://grist.org/ Grist is a current events website which focuses on news and opinion pieces about climate change and environmental issues. Although I do enjoy the website for news, and trust that they are putting out good facts, I would never use it on its own as a credible source because they don't always provide any sources for their information or distinguish between opinion and fact. I would instead use it as a starting off point for more rigorous research.