http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
I used Wikipedia as the bad source because while i was evaluating the source i found very little information on Medical Marijuana. The source came up with barely five sentences. On top of that they had no sources that were reliable or any reliable doctors, scientists or research to cite their findings. Wikipedia already is a very unreliable source considering anyone can edit the pages, so i was not expecting it to provide any good information.
The other site i chose to evaluate provide very good and reliable information. They are a government approved site and had great citations and places to check their sources. They update daily and leave that very easy to find at the bottom of the page. They have many other places to find lots of information on the subject and have government information on their page. I would definitely recommend using this site for any research on Medical marijuana.
While wikipedia does have its good articles I can agree it isn't at great source. I have even written for wikipedia. Though what I wrote for some articles was taken down because I did not give a source to back it, though this information was completely true. I wonder why they would take down my information after a few hour, and leave others information that has not been cited. Im not entirely sure exactly how wikipedia works, if they have employees who read the articles themselves or if its fully automated or if they don't even read the works and just skip the page to see if the new content has been cited.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is reviewed by peers and does have some staff. Some articles get flagged quicker than others for information to be updated/removed and some articles are better moderated than others.
ReplyDeleteI agree about your authenticity of governmental sites, as they are always credible, however, I think Wikipedia should be given more credit. When in need of information, Wikipedia is usually one of the first sites people look. The problem with Wikipedia is not its content, it the way it is utilized. People do not realize that every Wikipedia article has sources listed at the bottom of the page.
ReplyDelete