Truth Be Told, Aden Cruz

Fact checking is crucial to good journalism, and though editors offer some support and guidance in ensuring accuracy, reporters are still responsible for guaranteeing the correctness of his or her story. Journalists need to have a very clear understanding of their sources, knowing the credibility and understanding where the information is coming from is important. Reliability of reference sources is also key, a reporter should never assume that a document, official or not, is accurate.

Steven Wagers conveys the importance of fact checking in his blog post as he asserts that,“[h]aving an article properly edited is essential to a story. If the article is filled with false facts, readers might lose trust in that particular news publication, and rightfully so. The publication isn't the only one at a loss either. The journalist also loses credibility, and if they ever need to find a new job, they could run into problems if they build a reputation of presenting false facts.” Journalist must at all times exercise good judgment before using any type of sources as the reputation of the story, reporter, and most of all the publication depends on it.

Fact checking is a necessity, not an option. No journalist or publication can afford to turn out copy with false information and suffer legal ramifications. Reporters need to be skeptical of the source’s intentions and goals, be aware of biases, and be cautious that there are no holes preventing the story from being balanced. When people give quotes, verify the story behind it.

Detecting inaccuracies, however, isn’t quite so easy when there’s very little time to confirm all the information. This is a problem that many bloggers face because bloggers often operate on their own without help from an editor or fact checker. But, despite the legitimate time constraints, readers want and need accuracy in what they read.

Notes

Image Source: z.about.com

External Links (also in copy)
How to fact check and article: ehow.com

Internal Links (also in copy)
Steven Wager's blog post

Bias Activity, Terra Poole

There is always going to be bias in the news because every writer has an opinion. The important thing when regarding a bias in journalism is to give each side of argument an equal voice. An article from the Winnipeg Free Press with the headline, "Will Vancouver Games be 'worst' ever?" leaves out bias even in its headline because it doesn't shove an opinion down the reader's throat. The Edmonton Journal's article, Olympic critics leave out facts, is a little more biased because it doesn't give the other side of the argument a voice. However, headlines are appropriately biased at times because they're intended to draw readers in. Both the Canadian news sites, Winnipeg Free Press and The Edmonton Journal, have the intentions of Canadian's behind them. Neither would like to write that they are, indeed, the worst olympics ever when Canadian moral is hoping to remain optimistic. However, Guardian.co.uk's article, Vancouver Games continue downhill slide from disaster to calamity, doesn't have to write to protect Canadian moral and writes about the transportation issues, questions the safety of the luge sliding tracks and discussing the loss of face of $400,000 in ticket revenue due to lack of snow. The two Canadian articles don't even discuss these facts. The Edmonton Journal article brings up the fact that there were other Olympics that suffered worse fates than Vancouver 2010. For example, from the Edmonton Journal article:

"But the worst Olympics in history? Worse, say, than the 1972 Munich Olympics, at which Black September terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes and coaches? Worse than the smoggy Atlanta Games of 1996, at which a pro-life, anti-gay terrorist ignited a pipe bomb, killing two and injuring 111? Worse than the Berlin Olympics of 1936, which Hitler perverted as a Nazi propaganda tool?

A little historical perspective might be useful here."

Whereas, the United Kingdom article doesn't even bring up said facts. The Edmonton Journal does, however, present those facts with definite bias. They are suggesting that Vancouver 2010's Olympics do not even compare to the chaos and tragedies that happened in previous Olympics.

Note: image from boomtownbejing

evaluating:Your Guide to Citizen Journalism: Rob Smethurst

In an article by Mark Glaser, he discuses the purpose of citizen journalists. This article does seem to have a bias toward citizen journalists taking the reins of the realm of journalism. He seems to be mostly interested in showing that the news agency's need the citizen journalist in their arsenal. The information provided does seem to be somewhat accurate as far as amateur journalism is concerned, however not up to date.The article is aimed at a mass audience, and is designed to inform them.

The value of the site is good for a jumping of point for people that are interested in citizen journalism. It provides a fair view of terms and history, but because it is not current there is a chance that a lot of the information is out of date.

The references provided at the end of the article sound good, but some are no longer functioning.

The author is a writer for PBS, and has written many articles for them.

Picture of Mark Glaser

Evaluating "Canadian Press" Website, Steven Wagers

Overall Content

• Web page has a bunch of news stories. I think that it is trying to sell itself to the reader. There is no advertising on the homepage.
• Intended audience is anyone who is looking for news stories that were written by the canadian press.
• Audience is directed toward Canadian news readers.

Compare with other resources

• This site shows the most popular stories in certain genres (Health, Sports, etc.)
• The website seems very polished and it is nice to look at but I think that if I was looking for news, I would probably look elsewhere first.
• The website may be preferable for Canadians because they seem to publish only Canadian stories.
• Canadian Press itself has been around since 1910 but they started using the internet in 1997.

Author

• The authors work for Canadian Press which is a well known news publication in Canada, and therefore I am willing to say that they are fairly trustworthy. I trust that editors have taken the time to look over stories and make sure they are factual and The writers themselves are probably no slouches either.
• Bias is evident in that the news stories are strictly canadian. The information is clearly for educational purposes as it is a news site.
• There is a section called "about us" that gives readers information about how Canadian Press goes about their business.

Links

• Links are used mainly to get to the stories and do not stray from the website very much.
• To verify the reader would probably have to use search engines to get the information needed as links to sources are not readily provided.
• Links were last updated today (Feb 9).

Conclusion

• I gotta say the website looks good, and for the most part it does what it is supposed to.

Evaluating "Wired.com/dangerroom", Kevin Penny

Overall Content

• The content of the website is mainly related to American national security; however, there are several postings that relate to major world events. Mostly all of the postings have hyperlinks set inside of them to direct you to other information. The only advertisement seen on the website is a store dedicated to Wired products and a Haiti relief donation website. Although slightly satirical, the site directs its attention towards those concerned about the ongoing trials and hardships that the military undertakes every day.

Compare with other resources

• This website provides quite valuable information on topics that would normally not be covered by mainstream media. Books or journal articles would be helpful, but the information would be outdated by the time they were published.
• The website is preferable due to the fact that it provides timely information to a mass audience, and provides the additional sources needed for further reference.
• The site dates back to February of 2007, while current and historical materials are provided by the hyperlinks when needed.
• This site covers most topics relating to national security, and provides adequate hyperlinks for references.

Author

• There are several authors of the blog, and the editor of the blog is also a contributing editor to Wired Magazine.
• There is a slight bias against war efforts, but it is heavily laden in sarcasm. Mostly the blog is aimed at educating the public on what goes on with national security.
• This blog is run by Wired Magazine, and the editor was a campaign staffer with the Bill Clinton presidential campaign.
• The authors of the blog all have accessible email addresses, and the editor's number is easily obtainable online.

Check the Links

• Hyperlinks are actively revised throughout each blog, allowing easy access to other forms of additional information.
• These links are quite diverse, ranging from .gov and .mil websites to .org and .com, giving an objective view towards most posts.

Image taken from Dangerroom's twitter page.

Evaluating "Berkeley School of Journalism" -Devon Bowie

This is the home page of the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Its purpose is to attract potential students, or give current students information. As an educational instuitution, the site can be trusted for accuracy.
The site is good in the Aristotelian sense, as it fulfills its purpose. It is not, however, a particularly good resource, and other sources would likely be better for most purposes.
The site is authored by professional writers working for Berkeley, and thus trustworthy.
The site has been recently updated, with a copywrite of 2010 on the bottom of the page.

Lecture 6: Checking Facts and Forms of Bias

Outline:
Homework Review
Evaluate Websites
Forms of Bias
Blog Report 2
Homework


Chapter 5 Review:
With a partner:
Write a blog post responding to the following questions
Title: Chapter 5: Critical Interpretation, Student Names
Label: Lecture 6, Review
Interaction: Add a comment to another group’s Chapter 5 blog post

20 – 25 minutes

Purpose

• What is this text about?
• What does the author of the text want me to know or think?
• What does the author want me to do?
• Who would read or view this text?

Structures and Features

• What structures and features are used in the text?
• What does the design or style suggest about the text or about the audience of the text?
• What do the images/figures suggest?
• What kind of language is used?
• What do the words suggest?

Power

• Is the text fair?
• Are there people or groups who are seen in a ‘good light’? Are there people or groups who
• are not?
• Whose interests does the text serve?
• Who benefits from the text being read or viewed?

Gaps

• Are there people depicted in the text who are ‘seen’ but ‘not heard’?
• Who is not seen in the text?
• Are there people for whom this text is not intended?
• Does the text leave out or avoid certain ideas or issues?

Checking Sites for Accuracy:
Choose a journalism related website
Using the tips on page 99, evaluate the website for accuracy
Include your findings in a blog post
Title: Evaluating “Name of Website,” Student Name
Label: Lecture 6, accuracy, journalism 2.0, fact-checking


30 minutes

Types of Bias:

• Political bias, including bias in favour of or against a particular political party, candidate, or policy.
• Advertising bias, corporate media depends on advertising revenue for funding. This relationship promotes a bias to please the advertisers.
• Corporate bias, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favour or oppose corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favour the interests of the owners of the news media or its advertisers. Some critics view the financing of news outlets through advertising as an inherent cause of bias.
• Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to gather news from a relatively small number of easily available sources.
• Religious bias, including bias in which one religious or nonreligious viewpoint is given preference over others.
• Bias for or against a group based because of their race, gender, age, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
• Sensationalism, bias in favour of the exceptional over the ordinary, giving the impression that rare events, such as airplane crashes, are more common than common events, such as automobile crashes.

Critical Questions:

1. What is the author's/speaker's socio-political position? With what social, political, or professional groups is the speaker identified?
2. Does the speaker have anything to gain personally from delivering the message?
3. Who is paying for the message? Where does the message appear? What is the bias of the medium? Who stands to gain?
4. What sources does the speaker use, and how credible are they? Does the speaker cite statistics? If so, how were the data gathered, who gathered the data, and are the data being presented fully?
5. How does the speaker present arguments? Is the message one-sided, or does it include alternative points of view? Does the speaker fairly present alternative arguments? Does the speaker ignore obviously conflicting arguments?
6. If the message includes alternative points of view, how are those views characterised? Does the speaker use positive words and images to describe his/her point of view and negative words and images to describe other points of view? Does the speaker ascribe positive motivations to his/her point of view and negative motivations to alternative points of view?

Bias Activity:
Choose an event and locate 3-4 articles in different news sources. For example, if it is a Canadian story choose news sources from various regions of the country, if it is an international issue such as conflict in the Middle East select sources from various sides of the issue.
Some good websites include: www.newseum.org, www.onlinenewspapers.com and www.journalismnet.com/papers/canada.htm (Canadian Newspaper Index)
write a paragraph on whether there is bias in the news and give examples related to the chosen issue to prove your points

Blog Report 2:

Due: March 9th
Title: We Regret the Error, Name Surname
Label: Blog Report 2

Respond, using examples and in an academic tone:

“Journalists are conditioned to fear and avoid mistakes. This helps send the message that accuracy is important. From there, the best course of action is to help mitigate the fear by teaching practices and introducing tools that help prevent factual errors. Fear of mistakes doesn't lead to accuracy. In fact, one of the best ways to learn how to avoid errors is to make them in the first place. A study recently published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition is just the latest piece of research that suggests, as lead author Nate Kornell, an assistant professor of psychology at Williams College told me, that "making errors is the best way to learn information that you want to learn." Perhaps this sounds a bit confusing: fear is good, but also bad; mistakes are bad, but also instructive. That's exactly the point. Teaching accuracy is a multi-faceted process. It's complicated, and in truth it never really ends. You can't learn accuracy the way you learn to add and subtract. It's a process and a combination of learned behaviours, not a matter of memorization or motor memory.” ~ Craig Silverman

Include at least three mistakes made in Canadian newspapers (online versions)
Note the inaccuracy
Example:
“In a story on Page 3-A of Wednesday’s Independent about the Big Brothers Big Sisters’ Trail of Terror haunted house, a reaction to strobe lights should have included the word “freaking.” The word was replaced with asterisks, perhaps causing confusion about what was actually said. The Independent apologizes for this confusion and the impression it left.” — The Grand Island Independent

Homework:
Read Chapter 9
Read a current edition of the Huffington Post (the Feb. 22 of 23 issue)
Come with a topic for your e-portfolio



Note: Image 1 from Wristwatch Review, Image 2 from Unambiguously Ambidextrous.

Crap Detection, Megan Perras

Currency

I believe that this article was current as far as technology was concerned. There was a lot of references made to the past technologies as well, which I think aided in making the point that the evolution of information systems creates a need for an evolving information filter. It references twitter and other social media sites which are current and popular media tools. All of the links seem to be useful and working as well.

Reliability

The information provided is cautionary advice, and is expressed as such, which creates an opinion-based reliability. The opinion is backed up with facts and examples which can be checked. The article doesn’t need to be balanced because it is expressed as a personal opinion, but it has a large amount of sites which are helpful and truthful in checking information which you find on the internet. There are links for almost every topic the author discusses.

Authority

Howard Rheingold gives his email, so you have a chance to respond, which gives the reader the authority to create a dialogue. Also, there are areas for the reader to comment and participate in the discussion with others who have explored this topic. The author has a full biography with references and is an author, editor and professor. This creates an aura of credibility surrounding the article. The overall goal of the article seems to be to teach and inform the public about misinformation online and create a forum for discussion.

Purpose/ Point of View

Rheingold gives both fact and opinion within the article. The information is not biased, but seems to be a realistic opinion on how one should approach internet research. The author is selling an idea, but not for personal gain.

Fact Checking, Rob Smethurst

In the article from the Edmonton Journal, posted today, of a man rescued in Haiti, has to checked out as far as the checklist goes. It also touches on aid that is coming into the country as well as efforts to help clear the rubble. The reporter writes that helping out are several thousands of US troops, yet does not mention that there are many people concerned that such an American presence is a subtle takeover. Considering that this is supposed to be a good news story, I can understand why. Maybe the reporter could just do another story on the US presence in Haiti. They are armed really well....

Fact checking is so important in journalism it should be a basic move and secound nature to everyone in the industry, seeing as presenting the truth is the name of the game.

Notes: Image 1, Image 2

Fact Checking, Created Through Hard Work and Sweat Done by Steven Wagers

So, I am here to try my hand at being an editor for a news story that is currently online, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

The article is called Horcoff evidence of what ails Oilers and is on the Edmonton Sun's website at http://www.edmontonsun.com/sports/myoilers/2010/01/25/12610681.html.

I shall start by checking the names of all the people mentioned in this story. The name Shawn Horcoff comes up again and again throughout this article, which makes sense seeing as the article is about him, and throughout they have the spelling correct not only for Horcoff, but for all the other players as well. Same thing with Pat Quinn's name.

In this particular article, there is a great many stats which must be verified, and after my review I can attest to the validity of those stats.

Seeing as there are no real titles outside of "head caoch Pat Quinn" which was done correctly, I am led to the conclusion that this was done properly as well.

The quotes have all been attributed properly, and whoever edited it in real life has done a good job of getting this article ready for publishing.

Having an article properly edited is essential to a story. If the article is filled with false facts, readers might lose trust in that particular news publication, and rightfully so. The publication isn't the only one at a loss either. The journalist also loses credibility, and if they ever need to find a new job, they could run into problems if they build a reputation of presenting false facts. Making sure your facts are correct is just so crucial to becoming a good journalist.

Picture taken from http://www.hockeyforum.com/photopost/data/500/medium/nhlShawn_Horcoff.jpg

Crap Detection, Aden Cruz

Howard Rheingold’s article “Crap Detection 101” appears to be well balanced and credible. His purpose of cautioning readers against false or deceiving information that litters the web is neutral, as he has nothing to personally gain in conveying this.

The information he provides is substantiated by links to tools and resources.

Links to Rheingold’s biography, e-mail, and website is also available, which helps to confirm the author’s credibility.

The article is also relatively current, having been posted on June 30, 2009.

Notes

Image from: http://www.leadminingmuseum.co.uk

CRAP Detection, Kris Hoyt

This is an attempt to apply the CRAP Test to Howard Rheingold's article "Crap Detection 101"


C- Currency- The article was written on June 30, 2009. That means that, on the day of this writing, the article is four days from being seven months old. This means that the article is not very current. However, the topic, which is about reliable sources on the internet, does not age quickly, especially with the methods mentioned in the article, which the author managed to apply to his sources for over ten years, as stated by Rheingold.

R-Reliability-The article is about online research and how one can verify the online sources. This article is filled with links. At nearly every point in which the article references an outside source, there is a link to the outside source, and usually more. With the ability to check where Rheingold got his information, we can get a good check of the articles reliability.

A-Authority- The article was written by Howard Rheingold, who looks around the internet for such things as reliability in facts recieved online. As this is the man's job, I think one can find the article to have come from a trusted source. Also, the article was posted on SF Gate, the home page of the San Fransisco Chronicle. As a newspaper, the site can also be seen as fairly trustworthy. There are a few advertisements, but they have little to nothing to do with the article, so it can be assumed that they were randomly chosen.

P-Purpose/Point of View- I found that the article had some opinion about it. He stated his opinion that most people do not have the necessary knowledge to check their facts. However, as stated previously, the article does have a fair deal of links, so most of the things stated in the article, mainly the methods of checking the facts, do have a basis in fact. The sole purpose of the article is to educate people on the risks of online searching and how to make sure they have the right information.






This Picture is from http://www.rheingold.com/howard/

Crap Detection 102, Kevin Penny

Crap Detection 102:

Where to detect the spewing of crap

While Howard Rheingold uses Hemingway as a great example for using the 'crap detection' methods, he centralizes the issue too much on Internet websites. Hemingway was born in 1899, and did not assume that his methods of detecting crappy information would pertain directly to the world wide web, but to every aspect of information gathering.

I do agree that everybody should have a crap detector built into them; it is common sense to use your common sense. The problem is when people use their detection skills, it is usually towards an unknown target (such as a little-known website) because of their distrust and unfamiliarity. However, these same people would be less prone to try and detect any crap spewing from their favourite news channels and political parties.

For example, most people do not know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which was the main reason why the USA began the Vietnam War) did not actually happen, and was fabricated in order to persuade the public into starting a war. If you are one of the few who did know this little-known fact, give yourself a clap on the back for your astounding crap detection.

NSA government document of Gulf of Tonkin incident, pg. 26

Hemingway believed in constant crap detection because he knew that humans are prone to deceiving others (and occasionally, themselves). It is human to err, and it is human to deceive; therefore, a writer must be vigilant when gathering information. This includes every aspect of information, whether it be the Internet, a news broadcast, or a political speech.

Image taken from Iowansforpeace.net

CRAP Detection - Devon Bowie

The article seems to follow the C.R.A.P. detection rules fairly well, except in a few ways. A full report follows.






Currency: No problem. Site has been updated recently, article is less than a year old, and it's current enough to be relevant.





Reliability: It's largely an opinion piece, but the information checks out. It's factual.





Authority: Though I've never heard of the author, he apparently was a professor. He also wrote the article for a newspaper that seems to be well enough known. His personal site is well designes, too. http://www.rheingold.com/

Also apparently he'll be reading this. Hi! Claire says sorry.





Purpose: It's partially opinion, and it's biased, but as an opinion piece, it's allowed to be. He doesn't seem to want to sell me anything.

CRAP Detection, Robert Smethurst

As the author of Crap detection 101, Howard Rheingold, said, having to sort out all of the invalad information is not new to the computer age. While random gunk on the net seems more prevelant, that may just be becuase so many people have a voice that streches so far over the internet, where back in the early days of journalism thier voices may not have gone further than their own village.

People like to exagerate a story, in order to make it better and more exciting. That hasn't really changed, instead of stories of sea monsters and giants, we get slightly distorted facts, so close to the real trueth of the matter that it can become harder to see the differance. Some people may not even mean to alter reality, but it happens. However with that being said, there are a lot of people that want to share the trueth, and not change it. The trick is to know the differance.

The ability to develop accurate detecting skills becomes all the more important for journalists of today. Finding credible sorces is the key to reporting on the news, looking for people that know what they are talking about helps.

Notes: Image from http://www.forumspile.com/Spam-CanMan.jpg

Crap Detection, Pamela Di Pinto

When performing the CRAP test on Howard Rheingold's article, "Crap Detection 101," it appears to score fairly well overall.

Currency:

The article itself was posted just last year, June 30, 2009, to be more specific. In terms of currency, this would be considered fairly acceptable to the average online news-goer; however, its lack of updated information is apparent, especially with the specific examples such as the Iranian politcal demonstrations of June 2009. Yes, at the time this would be considered up-to-date, but now almost a year later, it is lacking in the area of currency. The website in which the article is published has remained up-to-date, indicated by the Copyright 2010 at the bottom of the page. The topic Rheingold presents has become somewhat of a timeless topic in today's evolving "digital age," where individuals often turn to the Internet as a source for information.

Reliability:

The article is focused on self-help information. In other words, it allows indivduals to use many untapped resources to protect themselves against unreliable sources on the Web. His opinion is offered, but it does not appear as a primarily opinionated piece. He uses facts and sources to support a truth: that people should question the reliability of their sources. Not all sources on the Web are reliable! It may seem one-sided in this point--that all sources need to be questioned--but, all in all, it remains fairly balanced in regards to the topic.

Authority:

The author, Howard Rheingold, is clearly indicated at the top of the article (so, bonus points for that!). Rheingold has also been in the business of the "digital world" for a long time, with an impressive number of univeristy lectures and books under his belt. I'm guessing he knows what he's talking about. The article appears to be self-published, and yes there are advertisements on the page where the article is featured. However, I don't think this takes away from the overall message behind his article.

Purpose/Point of View:

As mentioned above, this article does reveal some personal opinion, but I still believe it is based more so on a truth: not all Internet sources are reliable! People should read critically, and always question the credibility of their sources. It is harmful to always believe what you read at face value. In my opinion, the article seems fairly balanced as well, with lots of sources to back-up his examples. I don't think the author is trying to sell the audience anything. He is acting as an advisor, urging users to protect themselves from unreliable sources. He is promoting a lot of online tools, but not in a way that might dupe the user in the end; he is citing them for the users benefit!

Note: Image is from http://www.girlgeekchic.com/wp-content/uploads/spam.gif

Crap Detection, Max Rausch

Okay, let's go through this Crap Detection process methodically, shall we? Does Howard Rheingold's article pass the test that he himself advocates?

First off, does it have credibility? The article itself is posted on a reputable journalistic website, Home of the San Francisco Chronicle, with recent news stories adorning the home page. of course, the article is not a news story, but even an opinion piece needs a a certain degree of credibility to be featured on such a site.

Next, we see if the sources cited in the article are reliable. In fact, links are provided throughout the article so that the audience may verify this for themselves. This forthcoming style makes him easier to trust, and lets us know that, to paraphrase the man himself, he is not actually trying to pull one over on us. the presence of the links themselves would not be adequate if they did not lead to trustworthy sources, but Rheinegold has based his thoughts on insight from reliable and trusted sources from the Web.

What about authority? Is Mr. Rheingold a reliable source? Wikipedia says he's a critic, writer, and teacher who specializes in the cultural, social and political implications of modern communications technology. And if Wikipedia says he's reliable, he probably is. Granted, that might not be enough for some people to lend him their time, but if we ask Google, then we can easily confirm that he is in fact a knowledgeable person who has been writing on related subjects for some time now.




Finally, we have to consider the point of view of the author himself. Does he have any ulterior motives besides informing us for the sake of doing so? His background as a teacher would seem to indicate that informing for its own sake is not outside his nature. Moreover, his message is one that has universal appeal-he is not advocating a political or idealogical perspective. He is merely informing us on how to protect ourselves when surfing the web.


Note: image from clipartof.com

Crap Detection, Claire Theobald

Although Howard Rhiengold does make a valid point when it comes to his "CRAP" detection strategies, I fear his article was more like going into an art class to teach about painting-by-number. Chances are, if you have posted your article online, you are preaching to people who already employ these blatently obvious tactics to wade through the sewage spewed in many search engines. However, if we are to blind ourselves to the problems within the crap detection system, we find that he does do a fairly good job of following his own made up rules.

Unfortunately for Howard Rhiengold in his article "Crap Detection 101", he appears to fall on his own sword when his writing proves to be primarily opinion based, and also lacking in a certain level of currency. The issues of currency arise in the topic itself. Using search engines blindely is not an issue, because search engines and their chronic issues of credibility have become second nature to our modern, western society. Then there is the fact that his piece is purely based on opinion. His rules clearly state that one should "turn your skepticism meter" up a notch when faced with a broken rule. However, I contest that this rule would only apply if one is looking for a scholarly article as having opinions does not necessarily mean a complete lack of credibility.

In short, his CRAP rules need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Crap Detection, From the Desk of Steven Wagers

First off, when verifying information set in articles and postings, we have to look at the currency of the article, in other words is it current? In the case of the article "Crap Detection 101" by Howard Rheingold, the article was written more than half a year ago (June 30, 2009). This makes the article somewhat out of date but I think that what is written still has merits when performing fact checks today. Obviously this cannot be the most reliable source for this kind of information due to when it was written, but it is still relevant.

As for the reliability, the information is there but I still feel like I ought to question some of the things that are written. There are a lot of book titles, and websites to go to so you can check some facts, which I feel adds to the credibility of this article. Overall I think that it is a fairly reliable source.

There is no shortage of authority when it comes to the author of this article. Howard Rheingold has written a couple of books (Tools for Thought, The Virtual Community, and Smart Mobs) as well as being an editor (Whole Earth Review, The Millenium Whole Earth Catalog). He has even spent some time as a teacher at UC Berkely. He possesses the pedigree that leads me to believe he is a credible source.

So we come to the last portion of the crap test: Perspective/Point of View, and I think that Rheingold has a perspective that should be well respected when it comes to this field. As a former teacher I would be willing to guess that he has spent some time fact checking himself and therefore I feel his opinion and information is valid.

Image taken from http://www.lvpcchurch.org/lvpc/files/u1/magnifying-glass.gif

CRAP Detection, Ricki Cundliffe

C- This post was made by H. Rheingold about seven months ago, thus the information is fairly new, and very relevent. It does not appear to have been updated more recently, but that does not change the facts Rheingold recites.

R- The information included in this post revolves around the Internet; more specifically, the not-so-useful information offered by the Internet. The content is more or less opinionated, although Rheingold does state opinions of critics, etc. "Some critics argue that a tsunami of hogwash has already rendered the Web useless. I disagree" (para. 2).

A- Howard Rheingold is the author for this posting, and his contact information and picture are both clearly posted, which makes the source that much more credible. Furthermore, Rheingold links the post to his own website and biography - this is (very likely) a real person. These things give the readers more of an idea of who originally created the post, as well as who to contact with any questions or concerns. http://www.rheingold.com/ is Rheingold's actual website, which increased credibility tenfold. There are some advertisements lingering on the right side of the post, although these are not "pop-ups" that distract and irritate readers. His main goal seems to be to inform rather than to strongly persuade his readers.

P- No sales are attempted to be made. Bias is apparent, but not overwhelming.

Note: Image from: http://aaronblomberg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/poop.gif