1. I would check her Journal post for her citations or her sources. Then once i found them i would check them out online to see if they were reliable and find where she got her statistics. I would also check to see if she had any grammatical or spelling errors in her piece to make sure she had it reviewed before posting.
2. I would check her references in the blog to make sure she accurately recorded her findings. Then check her field and see if she comes up online.
3. I definitely believe it is because she does not include much prior information on the subject. Many people comment whether they agree or disagree so they are already aware of employers checking facebook's of their employees.
4. I think she provides good information that can be debated, but she does not properly cite her information or give quality websites where i can check her statistics. That being said i do not believe it is a suitable research source.
5. It tells that many people have looked into this research and support both sides. People commenting provide evidence where employers can view these sites and some provide information of them not being able to view these pages. It shows a good amount of people on both sides for and against this topic.
I think you did a good job of analyzing this article. The information is not up to date and the author does not provide proper citation of her information. Her article is mainly opinions rather than factual information which does not help her credibly. The comments help her article solely because they ask her for more information and about where she got her information to check to see if it is accurate or not. I think this author could have done a much better job of providing sources as well as factual evidence to support her opinions.
ReplyDeleteYep, I think you hit it right on the nose. While she is pretty knowledgeable about the topic (and her audience is to some degree as well), she fails to provide citations for her sources to back up her article. Even a list of links to her sources at the bottom of the page would've greatly increased this source's credibility.
ReplyDelete