Step One:
- Does the Wikipedia article appear to be biased in any way or does it maintain neutrality? It does seem to lean towards, "blame the humans for this" side.
- What facts has the author omitted? The author has omitted the 10 percent of uncertainty: " and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
- What additional information is necessary? The site immediately jumps to research on Greenhouse Gases, and provides little information about alternative theories.
- What words create positive or negative impressions? "likely" - either it is or it isn't
- What impression would I have if different words had been used? If words like "likely" or percentages, like "90 % certain" were omitted, I would view this information as fact
- All in all, I could find biases, but nothing that was overly obvious.
Step Two:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
Name of page: Causes of Global Warming
Address/URL: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
(Example: linked from another site, search engine, recommended by friend, etc.)
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.com,
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
lessens- it is a commercial website
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? hard to find any information about specific author
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? no contact info apparent.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? I CAN'T even find an author name.
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? Yes, National Geographic has always been given praise by educators of my past.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? They want to "keep nature spectacular."
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Above this article a picture of a Power Plant of some sort releasing some sort of smoke into the air.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? I do not think the resources are documented correctly despite this organization's reputation for being reputable.
INTENT
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
For example, to:
Persuade - convince you that Greenhouse gases are to blame for Global Warning.
Does the page contain advertisements? YES
Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?YES- and ad for subscriptions to National Geographic keep popping up.
Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?It seems like that is the sole purpose of the site- money maker.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Seems very current, but no exact dates are given.
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
no
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? no
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? It is seeming less and less reliable.
CONCLUSIONS
I don't think that this source is necessarily inapproriate, but a more reliable source would be needed if I were researching this topic.
Name of page: NAPS(North American Precis Syndicate) NET
Address/URL: http://www.napsnet.com
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.com
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
Yes, because it is a commercial website.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? The article- yes.
Is the author of the page an individual? yes
If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? Yes, NAPSA
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? The site does have editors.
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? both
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? N/A
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? The author doesn't use evidence, but lack there of to prove against a point.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? It is obvious what side the author is on.
Is the author the original creator of the information presented? yes, but research is based on work of others.
If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? not citations are recorded.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? Just the college that he is a professor at.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? Yes, his position suggests so.
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group: University of Missouri
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? It is a university, but not all universities are necessarily credible.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? the NAPS website does
Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? some
Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)? there is a "help" link.
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Hard to find obvious signs.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes, but just because something is edited does not mean that it is true. It could still be opinion.
INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
No "about" or "mission statement," but it is stated that this site offers copyright free, free readings
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
Both inform and persuade and stance on global warming.
Does the page contain advertisements?no
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Hard to find a date of article.
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? not that I can find
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?It seems properly maintained
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? There are site editors, but it is hard to find how valid these editors are.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? no
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? Somewhat reliable, but not valid as a sole research site
CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? It's not what I would deem inapproriate.
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? no
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? Not enough information about purpose. The articles are not copyrighted (not that copyright is completely necessary.
Step Three
General Sanctions:
Question and Answer:
Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?[hide]
A3: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend.
Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.[6]
In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.[7] This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.[8] On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.[9]
While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.[10] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.[11]
Online Source to back up Information:
Real Climate Site
Name of page: Real Clime
Address/URL: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.org
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
Yes, it is not a commercial website.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? yes
Is the author of the page an individual? yes
If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? The auhor is a Climate Scientist.
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? He would have some advanced degree of education in the field of study.
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? no
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? yes, mentioned above
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? yes, several charts and graphs are provided.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? just researched-driven data.
Is the author the original creator of the information presented?his information is supported by other research.
If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? sources cited.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? there is contact info, but not personal contact info.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? yes, he is a Climate Scientist
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? Yes: "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum."
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias?nothing completely obvious
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes.
INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
Yes, Stated above
Does the page contain advertisements? no
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes.
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Article updated in 2009
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
Only Climate Scientists can post information, but it not mentioned how this authenticity is validated
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? Yes
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? The source seems somewhat valid, but I would want to cross-reference the material
CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, the source seems somewhat valid, but I would want to cross-reference the material.
Step Five
What did you learn about issues related to global warming?
I learned that there is scientific controversy as to when the Arctic will be "ice-free." Some scientists estimate 2037, while others estimate as early as 2025. I found that scientists tend to agree that global warming is occurring; however the "when" "why" and "how" lend to different theories and different time frames.
How does Does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school?
I think it is valuable for students to witness skepticism of research. It teaches learner to critically anaylze information. For example:
Step Six
After reading the profiles of NewsAndEventsGuy and Enescot, I actually feel better about wikipedia and the peer reviewing and editing takes place. If you put something biased or inaccurate, it seems as though you will be "called out" on it. As an educator, I actually enjoy reviewing and reading the collaboration that takes place.
Step Seven
How do think Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom activities?
I believe that students could use Wikipedia to learn how to critically analyze information that is presented. They could be encouraged (like we did) to find sites that support and go against statements on Wikipedia and then do a Website Evaluation on each site.
What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks?
I think a combination of both sources would provide the best learning for students as students could easily compare the information of both.
Has your opinion changed? How? Why?
This assignment has provided me with insight on how valuable it is to be skeptical and critically think in the 21st century as misinformation can be intermixed with very valuable information all at the same time.
- Quote:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation."
- Supports Claim: National Geographic Article
Name of page: Causes of Global Warming
Address/URL: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
(Example: linked from another site, search engine, recommended by friend, etc.)
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.com,
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
lessens- it is a commercial website
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? hard to find any information about specific author
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? no contact info apparent.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? I CAN'T even find an author name.
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? Yes, National Geographic has always been given praise by educators of my past.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? They want to "keep nature spectacular."
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Above this article a picture of a Power Plant of some sort releasing some sort of smoke into the air.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? I do not think the resources are documented correctly despite this organization's reputation for being reputable.
INTENT
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
For example, to:
Persuade - convince you that Greenhouse gases are to blame for Global Warning.
Does the page contain advertisements? YES
Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page?YES- and ad for subscriptions to National Geographic keep popping up.
Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page?It seems like that is the sole purpose of the site- money maker.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Seems very current, but no exact dates are given.
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
no
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? no
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? It is seeming less and less reliable.
CONCLUSIONS
I don't think that this source is necessarily inapproriate, but a more reliable source would be needed if I were researching this topic.
- Goes against claim: Global Warming is Natural
Name of page: NAPS(North American Precis Syndicate) NET
Address/URL: http://www.napsnet.com
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.com
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
Yes, because it is a commercial website.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? The article- yes.
Is the author of the page an individual? yes
If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? Yes, NAPSA
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? The site does have editors.
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? both
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? N/A
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? The author doesn't use evidence, but lack there of to prove against a point.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? It is obvious what side the author is on.
Is the author the original creator of the information presented? yes, but research is based on work of others.
If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? not citations are recorded.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY, cont.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? Just the college that he is a professor at.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? Yes, his position suggests so.
If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group: University of Missouri
Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? It is a university, but not all universities are necessarily credible.
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? the NAPS website does
Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? some
Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)? there is a "help" link.
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? Hard to find obvious signs.
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes, but just because something is edited does not mean that it is true. It could still be opinion.
INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
No "about" or "mission statement," but it is stated that this site offers copyright free, free readings
What is or appears to be the purpose of the page?
Both inform and persuade and stance on global warming.
Does the page contain advertisements?no
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Hard to find a date of article.
Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? not that I can find
Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect?It seems properly maintained
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? There are site editors, but it is hard to find how valid these editors are.
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? no
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? Somewhat reliable, but not valid as a sole research site
CONCLUSIONS
Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? It's not what I would deem inapproriate.
Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? no
What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? Not enough information about purpose. The articles are not copyrighted (not that copyright is completely necessary.
Step Three
General Sanctions:
- This means that editors can be on probation: "Editors making disruptive edits to articles which are on probation may be banned by an administrator from further editing of such articles as well as related articles and/or project pages."
- Those sanctions are listed here.
Question and Answer:
Q3: Did global warming end in 1998?[hide]
A3: One of the strongest El Niño events in the instrumental record occurred during late 1997 through 1998, causing a spike in global temperature. Choosing this abnormally warm year as the starting point for comparisons with later years produces a cooling trend; choosing any other year in the 20th century produces a warming trend.
Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.[6]
In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.[7] This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.[8] On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.[9]
While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.[10] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.[11]
Online Source to back up Information:
Real Climate Site
Name of page: Real Clime
Address/URL: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Date Accessed: June 2, 2013
How did you find the page? google
DOMAIN
What is the domain of the page?
.org
Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility?
Yes, it is not a commercial website.
AUTHOR/AUTHORITY
Is the author of the page identified? yes
Is the author of the page an individual? yes
If the author is an individual:
Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? The auhor is a Climate Scientist.
If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? He would have some advanced degree of education in the field of study.
Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? no
Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? yes, mentioned above
Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? yes, several charts and graphs are provided.
Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? just researched-driven data.
Is the author the original creator of the information presented?his information is supported by other research.
If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? sources cited.
Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? there is contact info, but not personal contact info.
In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? yes, he is a Climate Scientist
Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? Yes: "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum."
Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias?nothing completely obvious
In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes.
INTENT
Is the purpose of the page clearly stated?
Yes, Stated above
Does the page contain advertisements? no
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?
Researchers
Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes.
CURRENTNESS
When was the information on the page created or last updated? Article updated in 2009
RELIABILITY
Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny?
Only Climate Scientists can post information, but it not mentioned how this authenticity is validated
Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? Yes
Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem? The source seems somewhat valid, but I would want to cross-reference the material
CONCLUSIONS
As stated above, the source seems somewhat valid, but I would want to cross-reference the material.
What did you learn about issues related to global warming?
I learned that there is scientific controversy as to when the Arctic will be "ice-free." Some scientists estimate 2037, while others estimate as early as 2025. I found that scientists tend to agree that global warming is occurring; however the "when" "why" and "how" lend to different theories and different time frames.
How does Does reading this section influence you perception of Wikipedia as a resource for learning in school?
I think it is valuable for students to witness skepticism of research. It teaches learner to critically anaylze information. For example:
I've had a look at the section of the article on "ecological systems". In my opinion, the section should be revised. I don't agree with how ocean acidification is described. I find the existing text alarmist. I'm comparing it to an assessment by the US National Research Council (US NRC, 2010), and a 2009 joint-statement made by 105 science academies (the Interacademy Panel). I recognize that the impacts of ocean acidification could be highly significant, but scientific understanding of these impacts is limited. US NRC (2010, p.5) state:
"Unless anthropogenic CO2 emissions are substantially curbed, or atmospheric CO2 is controlled by some other means, the average pH of the ocean will continue to fall. Ocean acidification has demonstrated impacts on many marine organisms. While the ultimate consequences are still unknown, there is a risk of ecosystem changes that threaten coral reefs, fisheries, protected species, and other natural resources of value to society"
Step Six
After reading the profiles of NewsAndEventsGuy and Enescot, I actually feel better about wikipedia and the peer reviewing and editing takes place. If you put something biased or inaccurate, it seems as though you will be "called out" on it. As an educator, I actually enjoy reviewing and reading the collaboration that takes place.
Step Seven
I believe that students could use Wikipedia to learn how to critically analyze information that is presented. They could be encouraged (like we did) to find sites that support and go against statements on Wikipedia and then do a Website Evaluation on each site.
What do you think about using Wikipedia as a source of information instead of textbooks?
I think a combination of both sources would provide the best learning for students as students could easily compare the information of both.
Has your opinion changed? How? Why?
This assignment has provided me with insight on how valuable it is to be skeptical and critically think in the 21st century as misinformation can be intermixed with very valuable information all at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment