Assessing Credibility
First Source
Bernard D, Goldstein, Jill Kriesk, Barbara Pavliakova.(2012,April). Missing From the Table. Environmental Health Perspectives3/22/13
The first source I looked at was published on April 2012. It has not been revised since then. The topic I am covering requires mostly current information, at least within the last 5 years. I checked their links and they are functional. The information presented in this article answers some questions about natural gas drilling and its potential effects. The authors intended audience is anyone who wants to know more about the methods used to extract natural gas from shale formations and concerned about its safety. I believe this article is written at a good level for me and understandable. Before looking at this source I searched a couple more and this one seemed the best out of all of them. I would be comfortable citing this article in a research paper.
The authors of this article where Bernard D. Goldstein, Jill Kriesk, and Barbara Pavliakova. The source it came from was Environmental Health Perspectives.Their affiliations included the Graduate School of Public Health and the University of Pittsburgh. These people were qualified to write this article. At the bottom of the article there was even an email address to contact Bernard D. Goldstein. Most of the sources this article has cited are from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and other organizations that are researching natural gas drilling. They back up some of their claims with proof because this article is basically about potential hazards that are not currently being monitored or restricted. This information seems to line up with previous knowledge I have. The language seems pretty unbiased for the most part. I didn't notice any spelling or typographical errors either.
The purpose of this article is basically to inform people of what is really going on with this issue. I don't believe the authors make their intentions exactly clear. The information they are presenting are facts all of their data and the fact that these concerns are currently not a concern for our policy makers. I believe their point of view is somewhat objective towards being against fracking. There are however no biases that I picked up on.
Second Source
Alison Rose Levy. (2012, November 30). 4 Horrifying Dangers of Fracking. Alternet
3/22/13
The second article I found was posted on November 30th 2012. The information has not been updated since then. The topic I am researching requires mostly information from the last 5 years. The links were also functional. The information relates to my topic question a little but not a lot. This article is intended for anyone who wants to know why hydraulic fracturing is bad. It is written at an appropriate level for me to understand. Before finding this one I browsed a few other sources. I would not want to cite this in my research paper. The author of this article is Allison Rose Levy. The article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org and is sponsered by Alternet. Her credentials basically are that she is a blogger who talks about health, food, and the environment and she has a weekly radio show. I don't believe the author is qualified to write on this topic. There is however an email address that you can use to contact her.
She doesn't say where she is getting her information from. Some of the information is supported by evidence. This article has not been reviewed or refereed. I can verify some of this information is correct while other parts of it are more concerns of things that may happen as opposed to something that is happening. I believe the language and tone is of more of the biased nature. I believe the purpose of this information is used to persuade people against fracking. I also believe that the title makes the purpose very clear on what this article is going to be about. The information being presented here is very serious concerns but she is using them more as propaganda and truths. I don't believe her viewpoint seems impartial. I also believe there is a great deal of personal bias in the way she wrote this article.
Conclusion
I believe that the first article I found through the libraries database was more credible than the one I found by doing a Google search. The one from the database had real information and citations telling you were they got that information. While the other article seemed biased and presented information without telling you where it came from.
The two articles you picked contrast strongly, which makes for an interesting CRAAP analysis. Reading your analysis prompted me to check out the "About Us" pages for each publisher. Did you look at those? If not, you definitely should. The differences between the organizations -- even how they talk about themselves -- is revealing.
ReplyDeleteI do have a couple of questions, though. What did you mean when you wrote that the first article is "somewhat objective towards being against fracking"? Also, remember that most seasoned writers have a specific audience in mind when they write an article. Many times this audience is determined by the target audience of the publication itself. So to write that "anyone with an interest" in the topic is the intended audience misses the mark a bit. How could you discover the actual, specific, intended audience for an article?