Credibility Accuracy Reasonableness Support

Today, it is very easy to believe anything seen on the internet. With numerous resources available instantaneously, it is impossible to know which ones are misleading, and which ones are legitimate. In the end, it all comes down to being able to distinguish a fake source, from a real source.

When reading, viewing, or listening to a mass media report, it is often tough for an audience to decide whether the information being present is accurate and reliable. In order to get a computer program to use reliable evidence, the program would have to be able to detect reliable and unreliable sources. To do this, the program could use a checklist when reviewing all potential sources of evidence. Signs of a unreliable source that could be on this list are its use of abusive language or bad grammar, no date of publication, that it is not associated with a reputable organization or publisher or that it presents only one side of a story. Having any of these signs checked off would indicate this source as unreliable and not fit for evidence in the program’s piece of

As the economy is moving towards a knowledge based environment, the ability to find good information to back up what you are saying is becoming more and more valuable. While the internet has made this a much easier, it has also created many new pitfalls. With so many new sources popping up daily it is difficult to differentiate between good and biased sources. Instruction at the GPRC includes:

Trustworthiness is achieved when a study is able to measure what it purports to measure to ensure the credibility, validity, and reliability of the findings of the study (Creswell, 2009). In a qualitative study, credibility is imperative for the value and caliber of the research. Credibility is determined by the deep, rich exploration of mentoring African American women. Simply to achieve credibility, only African American women in higher education who had been mentored for six or more months were required to participate in this research study. Moreover, assembling a collection of African American women’s experiences of a diverse group within higher education institutions built credibility of this study.

When beginning to research for this project, it seemed that a lot of credible sources were from universities or other educational establishments. The best website is sponsored by Vanderbilt University and has awesome information and was very eye-catching. There was also another site sponsored by The University of North Carolina at Charlotte and it gave good information but not as much as the best one. Lastly, I chose a site that was not very good at all to discuss what makes it not credible. Knowing the difference between a credible source and a non-credible source is crucial to the research process. Each site chosen for this project has several pros and cons of why it is either credible or non-credible.

Check” by Alyssa Rosenberg describes possible strategies that can be used when an individual is trying to figure out if the information found online is true. Rosenberg and her colleague David Ignatius asked individuals what outlets and writers did they had confidence in and to explain. Most of the people interviewed said that they trusted writers and individuals who passed along stories. Nick Baumann a senior editor at Huffington Post provided questions that people can ask themselves to ensure that the information on social media is credible. The author’s thesis is to help individuals who have trouble on judging what information online is true and to not get tricked

The importance of relying on scholarly - peer reviewed - articles and journals become clearer with each passing day; it is difficult to discern fact from fiction.

The purpose of this report is to show the difference between a great credible website and a non-credible website on the subject “effects of synthetic marijuana”. I have visited multiple websites searching for the most credible information on the effects of Synthetic Marijuana. After that I narrowed my research down to 2 websites. The first website www.drugs.com which shows great credibility, and the second website www.verywell.com which shows bad credibility.

All forms of media whether scientific or medical journals to school essays and even visual media such as news broadcast all share a common thread- the requirement of credibility. Credibility is the cornerstone to any successful presentation of information. An author must examine the credibility of sources before the inclusion of any information while audience members should also review credibility to determine the validity of information presented. Credibility can be complex but by determining on the origin of the source, conducting an in-depth evaluation of the source and focusing on both utilization and citation of the source the credibility of the presentation will resonate.

Questions about the authenticity of the Holy Bible have been interrogated since the first circulation of the Word. Nonbelievers dispute the entirety of the actuality of the Holy Bible. While skeptical believers along with some nonbelievers question the accuracy of recorded events within the Holy Bible, specifically the Gospels. Individuals debate the issue if the Gospels are historically reliable, claiming there is no tangible evidence and the books contradict themselves. Mark D. Roberts, in his book, Can we Trust the Gospels? was able to provide reliable evidence and reasons on why people can trust the Gospels. His book gives an overview on the subject of the gospel reliability and trustworthiness.

In “Reading Less and More When Evaluating Digital Information”, Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew evaluate the credibility of digital information using an experiment. In this experiment, they test historians, students, and fact checkers. The participants are given “a set of six online tasks that took approximately 45 minutes to complete.” (6) They are allowed to use any additional resources or sites to justify if the site is reliable or not.

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

The phrase “meanings are in people, not in words” can mean dissimilar things to different individuals. The meaning is in how they listen to the speaker and how they perceive the information. Source credibility and selective perception are important concepts in communication.

The work chosen for the research needed to be identified as credible. According to The OWL at Purdue writing lab some standards for assessing accuracy and credibility include “if the material was written by an author credible in their field of study”, “if the purpose of the paper is non objective”, “if the material was peer-reviewed”, and “who is the intended audience for the research”

Goodwill to me, had always been the willingness to help others. I think of the Goodwill store, there to supply for the less fortunate. My thoughts weren’t far off from the actual definitions. Goodwill being the positive relationship between you (or your company) and your audience. This helps to understand the phrase, “bring goodwill toward men”, to better the relationships between them.