I. Authority
- Look for a header or footer showing affiliation.
- Look at the URL. http://www.fbi.gov
- Look at the domain. .edu, .com, .ac.uk, .org, .net (.org and .gov are usually more trustworthy).
-
Rationale
- Anyone can publish anything on the web.
- It is often hard to determine a web page’s authorship.
- Even if a page is signed, qualifications are not usually provided.
- Sponsorship is not always indicated.
II. Accuracy
Is the information reliable and error-free?
Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?
- Typos may indicate the material originates overseas, which may or not make sense depending on the source.
- Can you verify any of this info with another source?
-
Rationale
- See number 1 above
- Unlike traditional print resources, web resources rarely have editors or fact-checkers.
- Currently, no web standards exist to ensure accuracy.
III. Objectivity
Does the information show a minimum of bias?
Is the page designed to sway opinion?
Is there any advertising on the page?
- Is the purpose of the page ad revenue? Who gains from traffic to the page and how might the page be slanted to increase traffic?
- Is there Spin? Media Spin by Brian Springer Part 1-6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMB4WijqNo&feature=relmfu , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwMYAAoZW-M&feature=relmfu, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Ucd9LwNvc&feature=relmfu, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uie6qAXBxX4&feature=relmfu, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvsYQ0ER2cA&feature=relmfu, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLZEzG1sEuI&feature=relmfu
- Is there slant? There is great power in filtering out certain types of images or content and only posting content that contributes to a certain final product. Facebook is a great example of this. On my facebook page, I am a hot mom living in heaven on earth with two hilarious kids that are non-stop cute. This is crafted. I don’t post pictures of me looking like a junkie, snapping at my kids, in their trashed rooms. Consider the overall impression of the site and if it might be filtered for a specific appeal.
- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/no-lie-your-facebook-profile-is-the-real-you/
- Is their media messaging through the images? Consider body language and what the connotations are for the images. Consider cropping and the focus of the image. Observe body positioning and eye contact and what that reveals about power. Consider the power of omission and what is missing from the picture. Who is the target audience? Who is being excluded? Is exclusion part of the message to the target audience or incidental?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bk4LhA8PQrowcPBHbNBexRu5UE-iFQqsRwT8yznntEk/edit
-
Rationale
- Frequently the goals of the sponsors/authors are not clearly stated.
- A website may exist to support a point of view.
- A website may exist to gain revenue from a target audience. The view supported may be a way of bringing in a target audience.
- Often the Web serves as a virtual soapbox.
IV. Currency
Is the page dated?
If so, when was the last update?
How current are the links? Have some expired or moved?
Evaluating information on the web:http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation,
Checking the traffic to a site, and how “fringe” it might be: http://www.alexa.com/,
Checking what the site used to be, who owns it, and if it has evolved:Way back machine: http://archive.org/web/web.php
- What is the history of the site? Has the site always existed in its current state or did a previous state have a more biased stance or a commercial purpose?
-
Rationale
- Publication or revision dates are not always provided.
- If a date is provided, it may have various meanings. For example,
- It may indicate when the material was first written
- It may indicate when the material was first placed on the Web
- It may indicate when the material was last revised
V. Coverage
What topics are covered?
What does this page offer that is not found elsewhere?
What is its intrinsic value?
How in-depth is the material?
-
Rationale
- Web coverage often differs from print coverage.
- Frequently, it’s difficult to determine the extent of coverage of a topic from a web page. The page may or may not include links to other web pages or print references.
- Sometimes web information is “just for fun”, a hoax, someone’s personal expression that may be of interest to noone, or even outright silliness.
This post was modified from:
Beck, Susan. The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: or, Why It’s a Good Idea to Evaluate Web Sources. 1997. http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html
TODAY’S 3D GUN VETTING ASSIGNMENTS:
Post Below, number 1-9 your vetting of your post:
| Source URL: Write the full source URL, not just the main web page. |
Authority: Source is credible? State author and their authority. Why should this author be trusted? |
Accuracy: Source is verifiable, reliable, error free. State another source you used for verification. |
Objectivity: Is there content bias? How can you be sure? |
Objectivity: Is there media messaging? Are images filtered? Biased? Targeted? |
Advertising: What percentage of the page is covered in ads? What are the ads for? Who benefits? |
Currency: How old is the info?Coverage: Rate the depth of coverage 1-10 Status: Credible Unbiased? |
BY TONIGHT MIDNIGHT, HAVE YOUR OWN TENTATIVE 6 SOURCE LIST PUT TOGETHER FOR YOUR VETTING. Email it to me.
BY THURSDAY MIDNIGHT POST BELOW YOUR VETTING FOR THE BELOW LINK you are assigned. (BE SURE TO STATE YOUR OVERALL VERDICT AFTER VETTING. CREDIBLE AND UNBIASED, CREDIBLE AND BIASED, or NOT CREDIBLE.)
Complete by FRIDAY midnight and email to me your final source list again. Complete the rubric and the STATUS for each source. Your entry must utilize THREE CREDIBLE UNBIASED sources. (Biased sources that are acknowledged as biased may be used in addition to the three. )NOT CREDIBLE sources may, of course, not be used.
FINAL TIPS:
Try out google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/
And remember, I am looking for a credible video source, a credible image source (remember to acknowledge media tactics) and text sources. Look for some high end college level academic text, and casual readible level text. AP will have a range- you should too.
YOUR OWN SYNTHESIS SOURCE VETTING must be pasted into the bottom of your document to be an eligible entry.
DUE MONDAY 1st DRAFT for AMERICAN WRITER. Share your draft with JUST ME. You may share with a trusted peer in this class that is under contract- remember your contract at all times. You are not obligated to share or coach this project.
Amira :http://www.armslist.com/
I think this supports being able to print guns because the person says if someone wants guns they age going to get it anyway they want so it won’t add violence.
This is positive because it tells you the top 5 benefits of have a 3D printed gun
Sebastian: http://www.extremetech.com/
Woops i posted a source that Stephanie already did, so here is my other one.
Brian: http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/debate/index.asp?article=d090307
This Source helps the opposing side, but also briefly explains the process of getting a gun legally in the US. If it is not impossible, someone who really needs a gun can just do it by the system.
This souce is for someone opposing the making of the 3d guns.
Jacob: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-3d-economy-uk.html
This link is a bit different from a an actual supporting fact. It can
be manipulated into the manufacturing of printable guns. There is
potential in using the idea of “a better economy” because of 3D
printing and relating it to 3D printing guns.
This link is a bit different from a an actual supporting fact. It can
be manipulated into the manufacturing of printable guns. There is
potential in using the idea of “a better economy” because of 3D
printing and relating it to 3D printing guns.
Marfel: http://dvice.com/archives/2012/10/3d-printer-make.php
This link is filled with fact/ statements that can be used for either
side–whether against it or for it.
This link is filled with fact/ statements that can be used for either
side–whether against it or for it.
Kaylah: http://www.techwench.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-3d-printing/
You can extract ideas and use to support your claim related to 3D
printable guns.
You can extract ideas and use to support your claim related to 3D
printable guns.
Charlie: http://articles.nydailynews.
Article with extra and same information we have discussed in class.
This is my pro reason why 3d guns are allow because with the right laws anyone can have them.
Michael R http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9512537889548050991&q=mass+murders+with+guns&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22
This is my con reason its case that takes place in Massachusetts.
This is my con reason its case that takes place in Massachusetts.
Stephanie: http://qball45.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/GunFreeZoneschool.jpg This shows a modern view how uncontrolled guns Have Already effected our schools etc…
Anna: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-stossel-guns-good-save-lives-criminals-lubys-cafeteria-texas-handgun/ This shows For Guns and the whole conversation about guns that kill the bad guys without guns etc. So basically they just killed the bad guy before they got their heads blow off first.
Susy: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html This can be both a con and pro for guns but mostly is a Cons against guns. It is also connected to the 2nd amendments with the right to bear arms and politics with masshooting and etc.
Orphans if a link goes wrong:
http://m.guardiannews.com/
-supports my thoughts of the 3d gun being a bad idea. Gives an experience where the 3D gun backfires.
http://303magazine.com/2012/
-Supports that the 3D gun is a bad idea because it explains how the crime rates (using weapons) go up.
http://www.wired.com/
-Supports the fact that having a gun is safe and could be used for defense.
This is a negative view of 3D printing guns because because it is saying 3D is threatening to turn the existing system.
15 Comments
1.) Source URL: http://www.slashgear.com/3d-printable-gun-effort-cut-short-by-stratasys-02250046/
2.) Authority: This source is credible. The author has authority because the information is accurate and is error free. This author should be trusted because this information is also found on other sites.
3.) Accuracy: The information is accurate and error free. This information is also on this site, http://defensedistributed.com/
4.) Objectivity: The content is bias. I am sure because it talks about how 3D printing guns should be allowed and only has a counterargument for why they should not. The site has more information on why 3D gun printing should be allowed so it is biased toward 3D gun printing.
5.) Objectivity: There is media messaging. The images are filtered because there is stuff that is bad about 3D gun printing that is not shown. Biased toward allowing 3D gun printing and is targeted for people who want guns but cannot buy them legally because of their record.
6.) Advertising: About one third of the page is covered in ads. The ads are for the Galaxy 2 note, android, comcure, buying stocks, Obama setting a twitter record, apple, iPad, iPad mini, iPhone 5, Verizon and AT&T Nokia Lumia. People who want to buy those things benefit but people who just want to read about the 3D gun printing do not.
7.) Currency: The page is dated. It was last updated October 2 2012. Links have not been expired or moved.
8.) Coverage: The topics that are covered are 3D gun printing should be legal, what 3D printings look like, how to create pieces for a 3D printer from your printer. Majority of information can be found on other sites. The material is really in depth. Depth coverage 8
9.) Status: Credible and biased.
1) Source URL : http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-weapons-in-the-wrong-hands-050310,0,608358.story
2) Authority : The source is a credible source. The story comes from a news anchor Tisha Lewis from Fox 59 News (from Indiana). This information is visited by many people.
3) Accuracy : The information from this source is reliable , with no errors and verifiable.You can check this site to verify http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Gun-Shop-Heist-Puts-24-Firearms-in-the-Wrong-Hands-169321046.html
4) Objectivity: This link is biased. It is against any gun making because they are arguing that all guns should be destroyed because the more guns the worse. This cite gives us an event where guns ended up in other criminal hands and the guns just keep going in a cycle. The more guns out there , the more dangerous.
5)Objectivity:It is biased against the creation of any more guns and it is targeted for people who dislike the whole idea of having guns around.
6) Advertising: This site does contain ads. There is one of “Butler Ballet”, Smartphone apps, Cambridge Trust Company etc. The ads are just for anyone reading the news who has money to spend on watching ballet shows and apps as well as people who need a bank to trust.
7) Currency: This information is from may 3, 2010 so a bit more than two years old. The coverage does go in depth because it provides specific examples of how having guns around is dangerous for us . I would rate the depth of this a 7. The status of this source is biased and credible.
1.Source:http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html
2.Authority: The source is credible because of the trafficking results. The author is Dana Bash, and hold the position of “CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent”. The author is trusted because she is a professional and she is worthy of bring credible for being an anchor and a reporter. . The following website is evidence of Dana Bash credibility (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/bash.dana.html)
3.Accuracy: The source is verifiable, reliable and error free. To verify the information, I went to http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/democrats-make-emotional-plea-for-gun-control-129944.html. I also looked up the trafficking of the website and it credible. I used the following website: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html.
4.Objectivity: The content is not bias. It is informative and it does not take a side. It shows facts rather than being in favor or against guns. However, the article seems to be bit against gun regulations. The fact provided can be used for either argument.
5.Objectivity: The media message is that gun issues are being ignored. In addition, the message is not bias. However the content can be used in either way. There are supporting details for a pro and con argument. Both republican and democrats are not taking action on gun regulations—president Obama has not touched the issue of gun. The article is informative.
6.Advertising: The advertisements are from: Exxonmobil, Sponsor link. There is a small amount of advertisements.
7.Currency: The article is recent. It was last updated on July 20, 2012.
8.Coverage: The overall topic of this article the argument of not taking action and establishing new gun regulations.
9.Status: The source is credible and not bias.
1. Source URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/02/wiki-weapon-plan-printable-3d-gun
2. Authority: This source has good authority and trafficking. The information is accurate and the author is in good standings.
3. Accuracy: This paper is an article from Holtz personal view so its not on other sites but he seems very credible with his writing.
4. Objectivity: I believe that this link is biased. Holtz explains that the government is against 3D guns. That the government is not up to date with technology and needs to be to understand the 3D printing.
5. Objectivity: There are only one picture in this link that has to deal with guns and it is of Holtz with a book titled “The Law” and a gun. I think the picture just connects Holtz with the book he read and the gun with a 3D gun.
6. Advertising: There are many UGG Australia ads on this URL. But, those are the only ads, no McDonald’s or Target ads.
7. Currency: This link is current. It was last updated on October 2, 2012.
8. Coverage: The topics Holtz covers is that 3D printing is currently illegal but the government needs to update their laws.
9. Status: This source is credible and biased.
1. Source URL: http://www.techwench.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-3d-printing/
2. Authority: There is no author listed because this website allows “guest users” to post articles. But all guest user must agree to the terms listed on the website to make sure that articles are always informative. And the trafficking is decent.
3. Accuracy: Information is accurate, but gives opinion.
4. Objectivity: I believe that this website is not very bias. It does give both pros and cons throughout the article, but the author does give his opinion at the beginning. The author says that he is excited about the increase of technology.
5. Objectivity: I don’t think this website is trying to push you to one side or the other. I think it was created to show the pros and cons, based on the title “The Pros And Cons Of 3D Printing”.
6. Advertising: The whole right side of the page is covered with ads for “web hosting”.
7. Currency: This website is current, posted Sept. 3, 2012
8. Coverage: The topics covered are; How 3D printing works, cost, cheap labor, “Saving Lives”, and unlawful items.
9. Status: The source is not the best, but it is credible and not completely bias.
1.Source URL:http://phys.org/news/2012-10-3d-economy-uk.html
2.Authority: The article says its supported by Lancaster University, then going onto the website for Lancaster University and clicked on their legal page. Their legal page states that they don’t support any independent work that is not on their cite.
3.Accuracy: Just because it says its not supported I don’t know how much to trust it.
4.Objectivity: I think that this page is biased because it doesn’t show both pros and cons.The author talks about how it will be bad for government and could make money in manufacturing go down. At the end he states his final opinion.
5.Objectivity:This article talks about all the bad things and how they showed act against it yet in the same article there’s a link for Adds from goggle for a professional 3D printer.
6.Advertising: The only advertisement on this page is a link for a professional 3D printer, a 3D printer buyers guide and an add for http://www.rudchain.com.
7.Currency:This website is current, posted on October 17, 2012.
8.Coverage: The topics covered were:effect in manufacturing, Britain making laws against the 3D guns, and people mixing the idea of computer and real life manufacturing.
9.Status:This source is one, mostly about the UK & isn’t supported by anyone who has taken credit for it, so this would be the most reliable source to choose.
1.Source:http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html
2.Authority: The source is credible because of the trafficking results. The author is Dana Bash, and hold the position of “CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent”. The author is trusted because she is a professional and she is worthy of bring credible for being an anchor and a reporter. . The following website is evidence of Dana Bash credibility (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/bash.dana.html)
3.Accuracy: The source is verifiable, reliable and error free. To verify the information, I went to http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/democrats-make-emotional-plea-for-gun-control-129944.html. I also looked up the trafficking of the website and it credible. I used the following website: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html.
4.Objectivity: The content is not bias. It is informative and it does not take a side. It shows facts rather than being in favor or against guns. However, the article seems to be bit against gun regulations. The fact provided can be used for either argument.
5.Objectivity: The media message is that gun issues are being ignored. In addition, the message is not bias. However the content can be used in either way. There are supporting details for a pro and con argument. Both republican and democrats are not taking action on gun regulations—president Obama has not touched the issue of gun. The article is informative.
6.Advertising: The advertisements are from: Exxonmobil, Sponsor link. There is a small amount of advertisements.
7.Currency: The article is recent. It was last updated on July 20, 2012.
8.Coverage: The overall topic of this article the argument of not taking action and establishing new gun regulations.
9.Status: The source is credible and not bias.
1. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-10-03/news/34243374_1_stratasys-printer-3d
2. If you google the Authors name “ Meena Hart Duerson” Authority is -You find out that the Author is a Ny Daily News reporter. Therefore not a random individual.
3. Accuracy:The source is Verifiable and reliable, and error fre
4.Objectivity:This website is simply giving you the real raw picture. It is simply giving the reader information on this topic of “3-D printable guns” There for they give no Personal opinion on the subject, and the author never gives the reader any personal opinion on the subject. So it has no position on the matter.
5.Objectivity: Once again and there is no opinion about the subject of the guns. the only opinion in the entire article would be the opinion and position of the man would actually got the 3-D taken away from him.
6.Advertising: When it comes to advertising.. It is completely random. All of them are by google. Every time you refresh the page , you would get a different ad. But all the advertisements would be about buying some type of car or information.
7.Currency: This website is updated on a daily basis. This information was posted on wednesday, October 03, 2012.
8.Coverage: It gives you the basic story of the 3-D printable gun. With a brief inside description on how a 3-d gun is actually developed and constructed.
9.Status: This information that is given to you is actually in my opinion a beginners or starters introduction into 3-D guns. It simply gives the reader , what is a 3-D gun and what is the current situation with those types of guns. For a person seeking more info. Not the best Source.
1. Source URL: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-stossel-guns-good-save-lives-criminals-lubys-cafeteria-texas-handgun/
2. Authority: The authority for this website is reliable, due to the fact that it comes from Fox News. Because of the fact that i KNOW Fox News is a National website for almost anything, i would not look up any more information on it because i trust Fox News.
3. Accuracy: The Information in this website is accurate. Not only because it comes from a reliable source but also because they had different people state their opinions on why guns are good.
4. Objectivity: I believe that this website is not very bias. It does give both pros and cons throughout the article, but the author does give his opinion at the beginning. The author says that he is excited about the increase of technology.
5. Objectivity:This link is biased. It mainly focuses on how increasing the number of guns in the US could be a positive thing & the overall idea of certain people’s opinions.
6. Advertising: There is advertisement in the bottom consisting of aol, and other news sources but nothing un-related to the website.
7. Currency: Posted June, 23 2010, making it two years old.
8. Coverage: The topic covered is overall on why increasing the number of gun ownership can sometimes be a good idea.
9. Status: I believe this source can be helpful if you are FOR 3d guns, but it’s not the strongest argument. The interviewees are stating their well though out opinion but it is their word against many other people’s words.
1.Source:http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html
2.Authority: The source is credible because of the trafficking results. The author is Dana Bash, and hold the position of “CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent”. The author is trusted because she is a professional and she is worthy of bring credible for being an anchor and a reporter. . The following website is evidence of Dana Bash credibility (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/bash.dana.html)
3.Accuracy: The source is verifiable, reliable and error free. To verify the information, I went to http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/07/democrats-make-emotional-plea-for-gun-control-129944.html. I also looked up the trafficking of the website and it credible. I used the following website: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html.
4.Objectivity: The content is not bias. It is informative and it does not take a side. It shows facts rather than being in favor or against guns. However, the article seems to be bit against gun regulations. The fact provided can be used for either argument.
5.Objectivity: The media message is that gun issues are being ignored. In addition, the message is not bias. However the content can be used in either way. There are supporting details for a pro and con argument. Both republican and democrats are not taking action on gun regulations—president Obama has not touched the issue of gun. The article is informative.
6.Advertising: The advertisements are from: Exxonmobil, Sponsor link. There is a small amount of advertisements.
7.Currency: The article is recent. It was last updated on July 20, 2012.
8.Coverage: The overall topic of this article the argument of not taking action and establishing new gun regulations.
9.Status: The source is credible and not bias.
1. ural:http://qball45.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/GunFreeZoneschool.jpg
2. Authority: There is no author listed because this website is just a picture that someone posted to support their opinion.
3. Accuracy: Information is not accurate at all, it just gives the person that posted it their opinion.
4. objecttivity: i think this is very bias because it is being prejudice against the schools, thinking that there is going to be violence where ever and they is nothing they can do about it.
5. Objectivity: I think this picture is showing that the schools have a lot of violence in it and they are defenseless.
6. Advertising: There is not advertising in this picture.
7. Currency: This website does not have a current date
8. Coverage: The topic is that schools are defenseless when it comes to violence.
9. Status: The source is not the best at all.
1.) Source URL: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/its-all-fun-and-games-until-someone-3d-prints-a-gun/
2.) Authority: This source is credible. The author has authority because the information up to date and there isn’t any errors. It is a reliable source because Smithsonian magazine’s in-depth coverage of history, science, nature, the arts, travel, world culture and technology.
3.) Accuracy: The information on this site is accurate because there are dates and numerous scientist’s reports.There aren’t any errors as well.
4.) Objectivity: The site is not bias. It doesn’t even state a position, it justr states facts about what has already occurred invovling 3D gun printing.
5.) Objectivity: In this site, I don’t think there is any media messaging. The image that it contains is of a normal gun that only the lower part was made by a 3d printer. There isn’t really a message behind this picture. This is the only picture shown.
6.) Advertising: This site does not really advertise for cell phone companies, mcdonalds, etc. The only advertisement on the page is related to the website which are about Smithsonian magazines, events, etc.These ads don’t really affect the reader, if anything it helps build up the site’s credibility.
7.) Currency: The page is dated. It was written on October 2, 2012 9:13 am.
8.) Coverage: The main topic is “It’s All Fun and Games Until Someone 3D-Prints a Gun”. This title kind of gives the reader an opinion that the site is going to be biased towards being against the whole thing but it honestly is not biased. The site does not take a stance. The site also talks about scientist reports, the creation of a 3d printed gun.
9.) Status: Credible and not biased. Overall, it is a helpful source, but there could be much better ones out there.
1. Source URL: http://www.core77.com/blog/digital_fabrication/bad_news_3d_printed_guns_may_become_a_reality_23570.asp
2. Authority: The authority for this website is pretty good to me. Its good because it gives us the “contributors” to the website, and their pictures and information was there. That made it reassuring that it was a accurate site.
3. Accuracy: The Information in this website is not completely accurate to me. I almost feel like I can’t trust it because its not a website I’ve personally ever heard of. Also the information they give is pretty weak.
4. Objectivity: I believe that this link is bias. The title is “BAD NEWS …” and the last paragraph on this article says “anyone with a 3D printer being able to secretly manufacture their own deadly weapons, with no practical way for authorities to apply oversight, is a potential powderkeg of trouble.” They do not approve of it.
5. Objectivity: The overall website I believe is not really biased. It does give their opinion on certain things but not in a biased way.
6. Advertising: There is advertisement on the right side of the website. The advertisments are related to design.
7. Currency: Since 1995, 17 years old
8. Coverage: The topic covered is basically telling us why its bad that there will be the 3D stuff, and could ruin many things.
9. Status: I believe this source can be useful if you disagree with the 3D idea or even if youre not sure because it makes you think about it.
Source URL:http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137269-the-3d-printed-gun-when-is-high-tech-too-hot-to-handle
Authority:It is credible because it isn’t some bootlegged website. The author is By David Cardinal and authority is from extremetech.com, which is a technology website.On the website , if you click on David Cardinal it gives you his bio and and bunch of websites that sponsored him.
Accuracy: THe snytex has was really good and there was no errors, also the author didn’t use simple or plain words. The author did but his sources only the sources for his picture.http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnesotahistoricalsociety/
Objectivity: There is really little bias because the author didn’t pick a side and pnly talk about one side of it, he instead gave backround information, then talk on both sides of the topic, giving no personal opinion on it.
Objectivity: In his article there there is some pictures but there is no targeting messaging because one picture is a diagram of the gun ,another one is a rusty gun, but there is a picture of Arnold Schwarzenegger carrying a rocket lancher, I think its for to get peoples attention.Around his article there is a lot of advertisements.
Advertising: I think about 45 percent. Most of the ads are either weapons or printers, I think its based on the article someone picked. The benefits are people who picked the article.
Currency: Its not that old is from October 3, 2012 , a month ago.
Coverage: The coverage is that people are making printerable guns that will cause a lot of problems if it succeed, It Gives the full story of it.
Status: Yes its unbiased because the website is not fake, the author is not some guy living in his parents basement, and the author does not gave his opinion or talks about the topic from one side of the story
1. Source URL: http://www.google.com/patents/US20020073595?pg=PA6&dq=should+guns+be+allowed+in+homes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_O2JUJj4EeXV0gHCvYHoAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=should%20guns%20be%20allowed%20in%20homes&f=false
2. Authority: The source is credible. The author who wrote this, did the experiment so he knows what he is talking about. His name is Juan Carlos Di Pietro and he talks about an invention improving revolvers
3. Accuracy: This source is published: the publishing number, date and correspondence address. This source was found in googles patents link so It must be credible.
4. Objectivity: I believe it is not bias because it is an experiment. I believe the author is open to new ideas and making improvements. There are different diagrams and pictures in the text.
5. Objectivity: There are 12 figures. It’s just a diagram and numbers on the gun that later show up on the text.
6. Advertising: There are no ads.
7. Currency: It was filed on Oct 19, 2001 but published June 20, 2002.
8. Coverage: I guess the author did a really good job getting his point across. He had an abstract and why explained why he did the experiment\invention. He had many reasons why, one of them was to create an easy use gun. He really explained what he did and detailed the gun and specific use. It makes it easier to understand.
9. Status: I believe this source is credible and sorta bias. It doesn’t talk about printing gun but making a better and easy use gun for people. Also, making it affordable. It is not a good site for the 3d gun making. It could maybe help improving a 3d, but doubt it.
One Trackback
[…] Vetting a Website […]