Good and Bad sites

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.

compare two links

http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxyprod.sfcollege.edu/ic/bic1/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=GALE|MHLNID065105817&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|K1606000285

&

 http://denzel.washington.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/actor_skiing.php

I compare to website about the movie star Denzel Washington. The first link is from Santa Fe’s library website. Since this is an academic website, it contains accurate and reliable information. In fact, his biography has been updated few days ago. The author, the work cited and all references are accurate in this link. There is no advertising, sponsor, or political organization that support this webpage so this count as an objective webpage. The information in this page is totally comprehensive and complete. It is even concludes Denzel Washington’s address!
On the other hand, the name of the other webpage is gossip so it shows not all information in this webpage have to be true .The ads are all around the page and distract reader from the main subject. There is no work cited, related link to the subject in this link. the main subject on the second link is a factual error which incurrence the webpage completely

facebook questions

1. The steps that I would take to determine whether Elefant's information is accurate is to check to see if there were any false statements made. Since she references many things, I would check to see if her references are credible or not. And also check to see if she cited any of her sources that she used in her article.

2. To go about determining whether or not Elefant is respected in her field I would most likely search her name on the internet and see what all she does and her accomplishments if there are in. Secondly, I would go to her "about me" tab on her blog to see if there are things written that point towards her being well respected.

3. Her blog post is written for an audience that is knowledgeable about her subject. I can tell this because of the comments that were left on the blog post.

4. No, because the article is far from up to date. She doesn't use references well and I fell as though this was just an article to get her thoughts and the thoughts of others put out there.

5. The comments say that this is just an article to get thoughts out there. From the comments, this is not an article to do research off of and that her audience varies.

      

Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?

1.) To verify her information, I would look up all of the sources she has listed for accuracy. She lists information from Financial Week and New York Daily News as well as a study from the Vault.

2.) From this article alone it's hard to judge whether or not she is respected in her field, I did a little sleuthing around the internet and found some information about her. It seems that she was among the first in the legal professional to become involved online.

3.) I think her blog post is written for people with at least some knowledge of the subject. While she does give some background information, she doesn't hold the reader's hand as she discusses the topic.

4.) I don't believe that this is a reliable source for research because she doesn't explicitly give links for her sources for one. I'd probably look up those sources she mentions and see if they were worth using.

5.) The blog comments seem to show various degrees of knowledge about the subject.

Source comparison

Source 1: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/27/does-video-game-addiction-fix-itself/

Accuracy supported by research and lists references to the study, author has a doctorate in psychology and has been publishing since the early 90s about psychological issues. Even though the article lists it as video game addiction, it seems less slanted toward showing it as a negative. This was last updated/reviewed on October 26, 2012. Is pretty comprehensive, showing background information about the subject as well.

Source 2: http://addictions.about.com/od/lesserknownaddictions/a/videogameadd.htm

Accuracy supported by sources listed, author is a psychologist though website itself has pages with various authors who may or may not be as credible. Lists it as an addiction, so the objectivity is obviously slanted in that way. This article was updated last as of March 22, 2012. Is fairly comprehensive within the article about  several issues related to the topic.

Ad Analysis

Analyze the ad at the end of this section. 

The ad at the end of the section is what seems to be a section of a website concerning human sexuality. The site is the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. It provides a mission statement as well as criteria they use to determine appropriate sites and information that they will provide on their site. They seem to be adamant in making sure that every piece of information they obtain and display are as accurate as possible and as factual as possible. The site provides all the information needed in order to be deemed an acceptable site for a legitimate research paper as well as for factual evidence.

 What is its causal argument? 

The causal argument is To disseminate knowledge about all aspects of human sexuality to the widest possible international community at moderate cost. 

 What does it identify as main causes?  

Trying to prove the factual information about articles as well as any other publication uses for the Electronic Journal Of Human Sexuality.

Does it identify contributory causes?

No, it seems as if the site in question mainly focuses on the topic at hand including Human Sexuality and all that it entails.

"Do employers using facebook for background checks face legal risks?"

1.      1. For checking accuracy of Carolyn Elefant’s article, the first step is to check if she has any  factual error on her article. Second, I will check her article’s references. She references too many different thing, I will check to are these references are creditable source of reference of not. Next, I will check to see if she has a work cited, or if she has written references or link for the references that she makes. I probably going to Google those references and some of the main statement and statistics that she uses on her article to make sure they are verifiable.

2.     2.   I will check the “about us” on her weblog to know her professionally, and her experience. Is her professionally is relevant to her article? Is the next question I will look for in order to check the credibility of her article, and to find out the article is respected to her field or not. If I could not find any accurate information about her, and the way she did her research, I will not count her article as a reliable source. For this matter, I also will check the way an article could be submit in her blog. Does it need to be refereed?

3.     3.  Yes. Her audiences are knowledgeable about her subject because they make mention really good point on their comment. Also one of them is doing a relevant research about the subject.

4.     4.  Not really because the website is not up-to-date, and she poorly references in her article. Also, I don’t consider her article comprehensive.

5. The comments show that she has a varied type of audience. One of them just shares the post without checking about accuracy of her post and her resources, but the other one wants to know how she comes up with her information, and check whether they are accurate or not.

facebook blog

1. I would get on the internet and check for evidence. Find a realiable source and check for facts to compare numbers. I would also check for a couple of similar blogs to see how and where other people get their information from.
2. You could look her up on the internet and check for comments and see if everything she says add up, I would say that would give her respect.
3.Yes, the story is wrote for a audience that is knowledgeable because most of the people who comments on it seem to know of the topic.
4.yes, because she gives numbers and names from actual research that she looked up.
5. The blog give me the insight that this is a big issue that certain people are worried about. It seems that    the information is true and that they agree with Elefant.

Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risk

1:  I would look up articles about employers using social networking sites for background check as well as the laws protecting peoples' privacy and the laws about discrimination.  Elefant also mentioned a survey done by a company called The Vault i would look up this survey to make sure they got their information right.

2:  Check her  previous blog posts and responses to those post to see how people react to her, whether they respect her or just bash or call her out of what she has said.

3:  I would have to say no, that anyone could read this and understand it.  But, the only reason i say this is because I have no knowledge about this subject and i understand it.

4:  I think it would be a suitable research source because she doesn't really give her opinion she just states facts about the subject and what is going on, or that's how it seemed to me, seeing as it is a blog post it could be biased to her opinion.

5:  That the people reading this blog understand and have additional information or point about the subject.

Page Accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory


The web page from wikipedia i decided to do was on Random Access Memory, or RAM.  For those that may not know exactly what ram is a form of computer data storage.  A random-access device allows stored data to be accessed in very nearly the same amount of time for any storage location, so data can be accessd quickly in any random order.  I read through everything on the web page and as far as i can see everything seems to be correct.  It correctly lists the different types of RAM as well as what RAM does and the history of RAM(where it came from and everything like that).  Even reading through the page multiple times and checking some of the history that i don't know about it everything seems to be good, i can't find any mistakes, that doesn't mean there aren't any it could just mean i don't notice them cause i already understand what it is talking about but either way I couldn't find anything.

"Do employers using facebook for background checks face legal risks?"

1. What steps would you take to determine whether Elefant's information is accurate?
I would check for the accuracy by checking for errors, checking the references, checking the links, and verifying the information. I would also check for credibility by looking for a list of authors, directors, or editors, checking to see if the site was refereed, checking for grammatical errors, and organized sponsors. I would also look for objectivity, currency, and comprehensiveness.
2. How could you determine whether Elefant is respected in her field?
I would look Elefant up and be sure to check the references she provided in the blog.
3. Is Elefant's blog written for and audience that is knowledgeable about her subjects? How can you tell?
The blog is written for a well informed audience because there is a lot of basic information that is left out. The information is mainly that of what Facebook is and why employers would want to look up a future employers Facebook.
4. Do you think this blog post is a suitable research source? Why or why not?
I think that this blog post is objective and provides both sides by providing the comments. If the comments were not used though, I would say the entire blog post was pretty bias.
5. What insight about this blog post do the comments that accompany it give you?
The comments give a different perspective and  different ideas concerning the subject to think about.

Wiki Assessment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_School

 Well I graduated class 02-09, I would rate it at 97% correct.

 The history is there and to my knowledge correct.  They break each phase of the school down into the basic schedule of what the students go through on a week to week basis.  The basic over view of everything is there but some of the numbers from my experience there do not match up it claims rucksacks at 65-90lbs during mountains we had a minimum of 100lbs and up to 127 at the highest, we had access to a scale before the field training exercise ( FTX) began.  They also claim an avg of 3.5 hours of sleep which is correct but it does not explain while on FTX students at most are allowed 2hours and while in garrison during school time they receive 3/5 hours.   Wikipedia does not do a good job at explaining that it is a school and the things that you are required to complete are taught there it’s a school primarily for combat MOS people so it helps to have a base line of the types of missions the students will be required but each phase you are taught everything they ask you to do in the FTX.  They do not mention the difference in classes based on the time of year you attend the course.  The agenda's and tasks each student must complete are the same however the time of year based on the weather heavily influence the challenge of the course based on what you need to be prepared for and what as far as health you have to be concerned with for example in the winter you have to be aware of hypothermia as well as heat casualties and in the summer you have to be concerned with heat casualties and insects like brown recluse spiders.  Regardless the wiki is over all very accurate for a base line of information about the course.

Week 13: Causal Argument

Practical Argument Readings:

• Chapter 8: “Evaluating Sources” (219-247)
• Chapter 13: "Causal Argument" (353-383)

Presentations:

• "Introduction to Causal Argument" (University of Louisville)
• Tyree Library - "Accessing Library Databases from Off Campus"

Resources:

"Evaluating Sources" (Lakeland Community College)
Tyree Library - "Finding Articles"
Tyree Library - "Is It a Popular Magazine or a Scholarly Journal"

Discussion Questions:

• Post links here to two sources about the same subject - one bad, one good.  Use the accuracy, credibility, objectivity, currency and comprehensiveness criteria to explain how you evaluated each source.
• As you probably know, most instructors (including me) discourage students from using Wikipedia as a source of information.  (Though I should note that the links in the footnote and resource sections at the bottom of the page are usually great sources of information.)  Read "The Top Ten Hoaxes in Wikipedia's First Ten Years" and then set out to find a Wikipedia page on a subject you know a lot about.  Post a link to the page here and assess the page's accuracy.
• Read "Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risk" (PA 244-46).  Answer the five discussion questions that accompany the reading.
• Analyze the ad at the end of this section.  What is its causal argument?  What does it identify as main causes?  Does it identify contributory causes?
• "Contemporary media is encouraging children to grow up too fast."  Create a causal chain that either supports or refutes this statement.