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:
Phd from Institute for Interplanetary Werewolves

-1 to -3

 

3

Author’s relevant organizational affiliations :
eg President of the Society for Civil Engineers

+1 to +2

‘Untrustworthy’ organization
eg President of UFO welcoming Committee

-1 to -3

 

4

Author’s contact information listed

+1

Not listed

 

 

5

Writing in the field of claimed reputation
eg Geologist writing about earthquakes

+1 to +2

Writing in a field unrelated to fame/credentials
eg Geologist writing about racism,or eg Shockley on eugenics

-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
Umberto.eco@NYU.edu

 

Non-professional email address
naughtybrat@aol.com

-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 STYLE OF CONTENT

 

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
WE HAVE GUIDE THEM IN Truth path revealed. 

-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

-2 to -3

 

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, :CUZ IT SUNDZ LIKE PEEPING LOL JST JKING 4EVER!

-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
www.md.com

+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