ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE
SOURCES FOR A PAPER
Generating
a credibility rating for each source: Not every source is credible or
acceptable. Know
how a credit rating for a person works?
It’s a number – a ranking -- showing risk of trusting with debt. Well, a similar thing can be done (will be
required for some papers) for sources of a paper or essay. The higher the ranking,, the more likely that
a source is trustworthy and its information useful and reliable. In other words, how credible a source
is towards your thesis.
IMPORTANT: *A
credibility rating applies only ‘towards your thesis’ because someone
against your thesis would rate your
sources differently.
I. How
do you calculate a source’s Credibility?
1)Every source starts with ZERO, a
neutral credibility score.
2) If the
source is a journal: +3 to the
score (Peer review enhances the
value).
If recommended
by a librarian or on a library maintained list or database (eg CQ Researcher):
+1 to the score
(librarians are more aware of ‘bias’ than most)
If
the source is a published book: +1 to
the source (the effort to get published requires slightly more scrutiny)
3) THEN, For
ANY source: Checklist through each
criteria below. If a source falls
under the trust or distrust side, see if you add or subtract to its credibility
rating. In some case you will see no
adjustment (blank, no +-), or a plus or minus value, or a range (for example,
-1 to -3, meaning you judge how bad the distrust level is for that criteria).
4) Keep a running
tally and see what number you are left with at the end.
NOTE: some categories MAY NOT apply to your source (website for an organization
criteria and your source is an interview, etc); skip them if that is the case.
A
source that finishes with a credibility
score of 6-8 may be usable for ENG102. For a paper in a class on a specific discipline (for example
Psychology, History) or an advanced
composition course (technical writing, etc), 10 may be a minimum credibility score in order for the
source to be acceptable for citations, etc.
Remember, this number only applies to your particular side of a thesis –
a pro vs con thesis may produce a very different credibility rating, even if
the source is the same.
THE Author* *Type in
the author’s name on yahoo.com, on amazon.com, check his/her biography, etc. |
||||||||||
TRUST Criteria
Distrust Criteria |
||||||||||
1 |
Author’s name on site/source |
|
Anonymous author |
-1 |
|
|||||
2 |
Author has ‘good’
credentials: title or position,
training, education, place of employment |
+1 |
Fake sounding/illegitimate
credentials: |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
3 |
Author’s relevant organizational
affiliations : |
+1 to +2 |
‘Untrustworthy’
organization |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
4 |
Author’s contact
information listed |
+1 |
Not listed |
|
|
|||||
5 |
Writing in the field of
claimed reputation |
+1 to +2 |
Writing in a field unrelated
to fame/credentials |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
6 |
Specialist writer (eg about
many tech issues) |
+1 |
Generalist writer
(journalist that writes for hire on any topic) |
-1 |
|
|||||
7 |
Good reviews of author’s work
(good onAmazon.com, New York Review of Books, review in a journal) |
+1 to +2 |
Bad reviews (same review
site as ‘good’ but from few, to many, to bad reviews only) |
-1 to -4 |
|
|||||
8 |
Specialized or established
publisher vs (Writer’s Market,
Amazon.com) |
+1 |
Self published or Publisher doesn’t have other titles when
searched for publisher name on amazon.com etc |
-1 |
|
|||||
9 |
professional email |
|
Non-professional email
address |
-1 |
|
|||||
|
Long time member/believer |
|
Recent conversions or split
ups (was a republican, and a week ago
became a democrat, set up a web page exposing something immediately, etc) |
-1 |
|
|||||
10 |
On official website: Nothing
for sale |
|
Official website:Trying to
sell you something other than books |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
|
The |
|
||||||||
1 |
|
|
Obvious Signs of
intentional falsehood (written on April 1st (fool’s day), peculiar
name: character named Yuri Dummas) |
-3 |
|
|||||
2 |
Bibliography or links: if
you click links, they exist |
|
Click on links and links
not found/ pages gone |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
3 |
Edited |
|
bad :grammar/misspellings |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
4 |
detailed |
+1 |
summary |
|
|
|||||
5 |
Conceding some points/discusses
‘other side’ |
|
Grand claims: Claims to be
the only source or best source |
-2 |
|
|||||
6 |
Credits sources/and or has
biblio page |
+1 |
Claims to be the revealed
truth, or Claims to give the true story never before revealed, but no sources
acknowledged |
-2 |
|
|||||
7 |
Open to any audience |
|
Intended for true believers only/ Biased language |
-1 |
|
|||||
8 |
Calm reasoned tone |
+1 |
Accuses opponent of being
radically wrong, personal attack or spiteful/hateful approach to
others/ Relies on ridicule/ Constantly
attacking the bias of opponents |
|
|
|||||
9 |
|
|
Emotional arguments/ Tries to get you emotionally worked up |
|
|
|||||
10 |
Adresses questions, doubts,
opposite point of view |
+1 |
One-sided presentation (all
bad or all good of subject) |
-1 |
|
|||||
11 |
Analysis |
|
entertainment focused
review or tone |
-1 |
|
|||||
THE ACTUAL/DETAILS
OF CONTENT |
|
|||||||||
|
Trust Criteria |
|
Distrust Criteria/ Questionable Sample |
|
|
|||||
1 |
Check names of
people/sources: If put into the internet
the names of people quoted or referred to, you find them |
|
A check of
names/authorities doesn’t find that they exist (eg lawyers not listed with bar) |
-1 to -2 |
|
|||||
2 |
Are movies, books, etc
mentioned or organizations real? IMDB,
Amazon, yahoo.com, deja.com |
|
books, organizations,
biblio sources etc mentioned on site don’t seem to exist |
-2 |
|
|||||
3 |
Corroboration: same
facts/POV’s on other sites; on internet, anything of reasonable importance
will be covered on multiple sites |
|
The article or author only
appears on a single source; not discussed positively on websites etc |
-1 |
|
|||||
4 |
|
|
Appeals to popular
prejudices or misconceptions |
-2 |
|
|||||
4 |
|
|
Inconsistencies/contradictions |
|
|
|||||
5 |
Type the specific topic +
FAQ in a search engine: is website, author, etc listed, recommended as a
great or primary source |
+1 to +3 |
|
|
|
|||||
6 |
Statistics have footnotes
to source and source, when entered on internet, exists |
|
No citation or footnote
explain where a statistic came from, Uses statistics without giving source |
-1 |
|
|||||
|
FOR WEBSITES ONLY |
|
||||||||
|
Trust Criteria |
|
Distrust Criteria/ Questionable Sample |
|
|
|||||
1 |
Website has a letters to
the editor/contact section |
|
no contact section |
-1 |
|
|||||
2 |
Professional format:
Edited, well formatted, professional graphics |
|
sloppy site/animated
graphics, Porno advertisements, blinking text, text messaging style writing,
: |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
3 |
Business/site’s has a
“mission” |
|
No mission for a business
site |
-1 |
|
|||||
4 |
Is the site linked to –
from/by other sites of good reputation? |
+1 |
No trustworthy sites link/recommend
that particular site |
|
|
|||||
5 |
Webname Domain ending in
.com or .org or .edu |
|
.tv or .info |
-1 |
|
|||||
6 |
Authoritative Domain name |
+1 |
average user web site
address http://journals.aol.com/cherrykitty2/CherryKittysBlog/asw |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
7 |
Syndication (more than one
writer for website, writer has written for other pages,etc) |
+1 |
|
|
|
|||||
8 |
Check site hosting? Ownership by legit grp? www.samspade.org, enter the .com or .edu
or .org in the box next to WHOIS will
return the registered owner of the name |
+1 |
Site owned by marketing
name or fake sounding name for example wholesalecomputerz.net |
-1 |
|
|||||
9 |
Travel up the root:
Truncate website and what do you get? For example cut www.robots.com/war.htm to www.robots.com
and it is still trustworthy |
|
You travel up the root and
its untrustworthy content |
-1 to -3 |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||