Evaluate the Credibility of Web Sources

Photo Cred: Wikipedia.com

I chose an article called "6 Meals We Would Never Enjoy The Same Way Again If Bees Disappeared" which was written by a source called the Huffington Post. This article discusses the issue of decrease in pollination and how it will affect our meals in years to come. The author of this post was not specified and was labeled only as a Huffington Post article. The Huffington Post is known for its news, blogs, and articles posted about various subjects.  It has recently been under the microscope for producing content that included slanted stories, un-cited photographs, and not using credible sources for their articles. It currently allows users to suggest corrections for an article that is then reviewed by the Huffington Post. Before 2013, users were allowed to alter content, which made them a less credible source since it was not controlled. Now if there are changes made, you can see the updates in a timeline so you can make your own judgments on the information at hand. According to one of our Module 3 resources, “Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources”, it states “developing a keen sense of the credibility of sources, based on such clues as connection of author to the subject, audience, source of publication, and documentation of supporting evidence, can also help you evaluate print and other types of sources” (Montecino 1998).  It is important for us as the consumer to look for those clues, based on what I found the Huffington Post is lacking in a lot of these areas. As web publishing continues to grow, the use these clues is going to become even more important.

There are 5 main sources that were used to write this article. The folioing sources include: Beeinformed.org, Pollinator.org,Backyardbeekeepers.com, The Xerces Society and the Bee Lab at the University of Minnesota. I evaluated each of these sources by following the criteria using our Module 3 resource guide.

Beeinformed.org: I would deem this source highly credible for the following reasons: It ends in a .org, is publicly known by the USDA, NIFA, the Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and is research based information not opinion based.

Pollinator.org: I would deem this source to be highly credible for the following reasons: Ends in a .org, is a Non-profit organization, are a part of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC), and its information is research based not opinion based. 

Backyardkeepers.com: I would deem this source as not credible for the following reasons: Ends in a .com, is an Association of groups of people with in the community, the information seems based on opinions and bias towards the subject rather than fact and research based information, and is an organization in which anyone can join to create additional information about the topic. I would not be inclined to use this as my main sources.

The Xerces Society: I would deem this source highly credible for the following reasons: It ends in a .org, provides a multitude of resources that are research based and a part of their non-profit organization for the advocacy of bees, provides us with programs, publications, and current news on the topic of bees and pollination that covers all aspects and opinions.

Bee Lab at the University of Minnesota: I would deem this source as somewhat credible for the following reasons: It ends in an edu., its information is based on actual research done by the school, and provides classes and additional education resources to provide support to their information. The program is also nationally accredited.

It is important for us as consumers to understand that unrestricted web publishing does not exist in the United States. We have the ability to speak freely which is why website content is not heavily controlled and monitored. That is why it is so important for us as consumers to be able to break down sources and its content to understand its credibility before we put out misinformation. The more technology grows the harder it will become for content to be controlled. It will become easier to slant stories and have biased based content instead of content that is heavily evaluated for misinformation. In conclusion I would say that the articles sources are credible and I would be inclined to use this information I have read about to relay to others. I would feel confident in the information I was telling based on the credibility and effectiveness of the sources used in this article.

Resources

6 Meals We Would Never Enjoy The Same Way Again If Bees Disappeared. (2014, September 09). Retrieved September 21, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/placeholder-for-cascadian_n_5687779.html

Montecino, V. (1998, August 1). Helpful Hints to Help You Evaluate the Credibility of Web Resources. Retrieved September 21, 2014, from http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm