Computer Information: Evaluating Sources

Source: Who is providing the information?

Motivation: Why are they telling me this?

Evidence. What evidence is provided for generalizations?

Logic: Do the facts logically compel the conclusions?

Left Out: What’s missing that might change our interpretation of the information?

Find out more about the SMELL Test.

Currency: How timely is the information?

Relevance: How closely does the information meet your needs?

Authority: Who or what is the source of the information?

Accuracy: How reliable, truthful, and correct is the content?

Purpose: Why does the information exist?

Pro:

• Current information
• Specialized articles related to a particular discipline or profession (including context and analysis)

Con:

• Sources not always cited
• Articles vary between short and easy to lengthy and highly specific

Intended Audience: Professional organizations or professionals/scholars with similar interests

What For / Consider: Has characteristics in common with both popular magazines and scholarly journals

Pro:

• More space than newspapers, magazines, or journals results in greater depth of information
• Often include tables of contents and indexes for easy navigation and discovery
• Often include footnotes, endnotes, and/or bibliographies
• Most books undergo some sort of editorial process (usually writer - editor)

Con:

• Take more time to read than other sources
• Can take months or even years to publish
• Many books do not undergo peer review
• Rise in self-publishing means more unedited or poorly edited books reach publication

Intended Audience: Varies (general audience through scholars)

What For / Consider: Information may be dated due to the time it takes to publish a book.

Pro:

• More space than newspapers = longer articles, more depth
• Published faster than books
• Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people: reporter to editor to copy editor
• Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

• Less space than books
• Publish articles less frequently than websites or newspapers; information can be outdated by press time
• Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
• Articles are not peer-reviewed
• Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience or those with a specific, recreational interest (e.g. sports, fashion, science, etc.)

What For / Consider: Potential editorial bias

Pro:

• Published more frequently than magazines, journals, or books
• Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people -- reporter to editor to copy editor
• Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

• Space limitations = shorter articles, less detail
• Publish articles less frequently than websites; information can be outdated by press time
• Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
• Articles are not peer-reviewed
• Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Contains both fact-based reporting and editorial content (opinions). Opinions may be biased.

Pro:

• Easy to find using Google
• Often have higher editorial and design standards than personal websites
• Often managed by professional writers and designers
• Government websites are designed to inform citizens

Con:

• Commercial interests may come first
• Articles are written for general audiences
• Bylines often missing and works rarely cited

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Governmental and educational websites have higher credibility than commercial websites

Pro:

• Articles easy to find using the site’s search field or Google
• Articles about current events updated frequently
• Best articles are edited by a crowd of interested and informed writers
• Useful for background information

Con:

• Editorial standards set by community; minimal oversight from Wikipedia staff
• Articles on obscure topics can go untouched for months
• Non-experts have just as much editorial control as experts
• Worst articles are poorly written and poorly sourced
• Instructors do not allow use as a source

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Use the reference list to find other sources that can used

Pro:

• Easy to find through Google
• Might be updated quickly and frequently
• Direct access to person / author
• Access to scholarly work in progress
• Expansion of published work

Con:

• No editorial standards or oversight = author can express opinions, biases, and incorrect information with few consequences
• May not include information about the author, date of publication, or sources cited (if any)
• Vary widely in quality and reliability

Intended Audience: General audience through scholars depending on the source

What For / Consider: High potential for bias. Usually informal.