what makes one source credible or trustworthy than other? what questions do you ask when evaluating a source a

Answer 1

Online sources are considered trustworthy when they are printed in a scholarly journal and are "peer reviewed". This means that they are written within their specialty and other people in their field agree. ie: it's more trustworthy to hear a pediatrician write about kids with ear infections than it is for a company who is trying to sell ear plugs writing the same article. Hope that helps.

Answer 2

When doing research on the World Wide Web, some question the integrity and truth to online articles written by who knows who. There are ways to making sure that each article picked out is one hundred percent truthful and factual. One way is by the ending of the universal resource locators (URL), if it ends in .edu, it is from an educational institute, if it ends in .gov then it is from a government web site. If an URL ends with .com there is a significant chance to take in the validity of the information obtained, it is a commercial organization that anyone who has an opinion can own. Other URL endings include; .org-non-profit organization, .net- entity involved in net infrastructure, such as an ISP, and .mil- U.S. military (The Straight Dope. May 1, 2000).
The questions I ask when evaluating a source are, is the author biased? What questions of truthfulness are raised when reading this article? What would this author have to gain by writing a fraudulent article? Is this article relevant to my search?

Answer 3

if you start at the ocean and follow the river to the source, it's probably the correct one ... of course, in my own experience, eternal storyboard dragons and eternal 'whispering' flora comets cannot always discern the location of first street except to say: 'it's somewhere near second street' ... ... ... i suppose it mite make since to add that the only truely credible source is the one that puts a little more than just 300 million faces on 300 million dollar bills, and the closest i've seen would be the good dragon earth who minted around 7 billion people on about 7 billion flesh notes and tacked on alot more than just a face (there were others minted, but some are temporarily out of circulation) ... ... i had a real epiphany today and sense i ammended my answer hear for sum reason, i figure i'll mention the big awesome thing that happened: it's all about sources, coincidentally ... the sky was mostly cloudy ... light, high clouds ... but there was a tiny slit in the cloud cover with blue sky shining through ... it looked like a giant dragon with an eye just slightly cracked open ... i've seen many dragons in my dreams and even enormous ones ... but this was different, this was the closest to truely huge and truely real time i've ever felt a dragon ... that was more than awesome enough ... but minutes later, something else occured to me ... as a child, about age 10, some kid at school was ranting and raving about ****** this and ****** that, and it occured to me that ******* were the next huge champs of the world ... that there was no stopping them as long as such dolts carried on so creepily ... but today, just after the 'dragon sighting' the best dragon sighting ever for me, it occured to me that for over two hundred thousand years there has been another true champ plotting quietly in some unseen corner ... and after so many eternities of dolts carrying on girls this and girls that, they are truely the unshakable champs of forever ... it was big for me, i haven't registered yet how big ... it's so big i can't feel how big yet, like those occasional winter nites so cold you can't even feel the cold

Answer 4

Scholarly or "peer reviewed" journals are the gold standard. They will not be published unless they pass rigorous review. If the material does not meet the standards, it will not be published. Overused sources such as wikipedia are notorious for errors, try to stay away from them. Stick with databases such as google scholar, ebscohost or j-store for reliable sources. A good source will be objective or free of opinion.

Answer 5

Ahaha, this may be a poor question - we had to learn all approximately it in present day background ..yet regrettably i've got forgotten maximum of it. this is what I bear in concepts. Credibility of a source is set via: * What became into the term it became into written in (bcoz the story might have replaced over the years - the older it is the less good .. i think of - u could choose different supplies to returned it up. * what's the character of the source? First hand or secondary source - first hand is greater credible * Is the source corroborated via different supplies? -> Do different supplies say an identical/comparable difficulty to your source (backs it up if greater human beings have reported an identical difficulty) to verify that your source became into credible * Is the source bias? - Is it one sided or does it characterize the two area extremely appropriately? * What became into the purpose or intent of the source? - became into it written to entertain, instruct etc.. A source might get replaced so as to tournament the purpose meant. E.G - If it became into written for entertainment applications then the content cloth of that source won't all be authentic and could incorporate lines of fabrication so as to "entertain" its purpose audience. .. dude, i don't comprehend if this became into precisely what you have been searching for, yet I did my proper - stable success

Answer 6

I've spent 68 years gathering information..........."I'm a jack of all trades and master of none" I rely on my ability to remember, reason and deduct. If it looks like beans and cooks like beans and eats like beans ...then it must be a fart!
Common sense and logic.

Answer 7

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/eval-sources.htm

http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm