Wikipedia: In my opinion Wikipedia is a pretty reliable source because people from all around the world can edit it, so therefore you can get many different points of view when it comes to writing about a specific topic. Even though this reason can affect as well the context of the topic, since anybody can edit it, then sometimes people could write some things that might be false or biased.
Book (A Study of Crisis): In my opinion books are really good and reliable sources. One of the reasons why I think this, is because the author is telling about something first hand, so the information being told, hasn't been edited by anybody else apart from the author/s. Even though one negative thing about books is that usually the author is one and information he/she writes about a topic might be highly influenced by his/her cultural background.
dcstams.com: This source of information might be reliable because it isn't an Italian or a Greek website. One reason why I think this website might be because it lists the secondary sources the author of the page used for writing his website. One reason why it might not be a reliable source might be because he didn't use much of sources, only 2.
punch.photoshelter.com: In my opinion it is more or less reliable for the information I used in my blog (1 picture and key dates). It is reliable because the cartoons which are drawn, are from different authors not just from one author, so this might allows different points of view. Even though this is a British magazine, so most likely they are only going to post cartoons which are seen good only from the British point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment