Let's go through five websites and keep in mind the various details to each site.
The first site, containing an article called "Peak Oil- True or False," in my opinion, is a bit sketchy. the site itself seems full of propaganda, some of it even calling for the audience to popularize the site by advertising it. If the content is good enough/true, it will advertise itself. The author doesn't even have any information about himself on the site. however, when cross-referenced with the blog that is provided, it opens up that the man has been involved with journalism like this for some times and could possibly be considered a credible source. But when it comes to the material, it's hit and miss. Some of it sources, but some of it also seriously has a bias to it.
Next up is the "Peak Oil Overview". God, where do I even begin on this horrible thing? If anyone considers it a respectable or good source for information, please leave. There's something to be considered when the author of the post is "Gail the Actuary." To be fair, the post does attempt some semblance of information, but when closely looked at, majority of the information comes from Wikipedia. Everyone who is a journalist should know the fundamental rule, never quote anything from Wikipedia. Use the source it has, use it as a lunch point, but never directly source it.
Now here is a website to ponder, rather than one specific article, IHS. when it comes to looking for information, I would much rather trust something that shows credentials and demonstrates research from a variety of people, not just from one person who looks on Google and pulls up the first link for their search result as their source of information. The site is easy to navigate, and there doesn't seem to be traces of bias, or people attempting to throw you off with random information.
When it comes to figuring out what sources to use, it's important to take into consideration the format in which information is presented to the audience. Take for instance this article. something that should be noted is that this is an editorial, and it doesn't try to be anything but that. The author is not presenting his opinion as fact, but it has a voice as something that wants to be taken into consideration. This is by all means something that works as a source. He cross-references where he gets his information, so it's not like it's a horrible lie disguised to manipulate the masses. When it comes to trying to prove a point, having a well-backed opinion over a definite fact can sometimes make a difference as well.
Let's wrap things up with "The End of the World as you Know it." this little piece is from somewhat of a local author, a professor at Hampshire College. I'll just say that I don't like this piece. The primary problems that it contains are the sourcing. Majority, if not all of the outside information comes from the Department of Energy. Most of the other information comes from speculation. He's the primary problem, the article takes itself seriously and presents it's information as a misleading fact. The author makes claims about various countries that actually have no merit whatsoever, and seem to be thrown in there to make the post seem more intelligent than it actually is. Links to other sites don't actually link directly to what he claims, just the website he claims to get the information from. Overall, it's very poorly put together. To be fair though, when I cross-referenced his book with user reviews, many people found it to be intellectually stimulating and a worth read. Take that with a grain of salt. I'm not saying this man is an idiot, but it's a lesson to make sure you're sourcing something that actually makes sense in the long run.
That's probably the main point when it comes to this. anyone can publish anything online. Wikipedia is not research. Actually look at where the information is coming from and don't just blindly throw it up. It makes the difference between a horrible post, and one with merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment