Teaching Technology to Inspire Future Generations: Week 2

Steps 1, 2 and 3

Wikipedia begins the article by taking a factual approach of providing information. But then the article appears to take a side indicating that the increase has occurred since 1980 and that 90% of scientist are sure that it is caused by greenhouse gasses produced by humans. It continues to indicate that the global warming will cause major changes in our earth conditions – such as increased temperatures around the world, expanded deserts, and melting of the ice caps.

Step 4

The claim I found in the Wikipedia article or description is: “2005 and 2010 tied for the planet's warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.”

Step 5

VERIFY

To verify the claim I searched Google for the hottest year. I found this statement on NASA’s website “Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.”

Web Page Evaluation Checklist

Name of page: NASA – NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

Address/URL: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

Date Accessed:

How did you find the page? I used the search engine Google to search for the hottest year on record

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page? .gov

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? I believe this being a government site adds to the pages credibility.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? Yes

Is the author of the page an individual? Steve Cole and Leslie McCarthy and the organizations is identified as NASA Headquarters and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

If the author is an individual:

Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? Yes

If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? Yes

Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? No

Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? Yes

Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? No

Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? No

Is the author the original creator of the information presented? No

If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? Yes

Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? Yes

In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? Yes

If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:

Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? Yes

Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? On other pages within the site, yes.

Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? On other pages within the site yes.

Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)? yes

Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? Yes

Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? No

In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Yes

INTENT

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated? Yes

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page? Inform

Does the page contain advertisements? Do the ads distract from the page’s content, affect the page’s reliability, or appear to be the main focus of the page? Might they be necessary to support the organization responsible for the page? No

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

Anyone interested in the topic.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated? January 19, 2012

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? Yes

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? Yes

RELIABILITY

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? No

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? No

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?

The source seems very reliable.

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? Yes

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? Yes

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? There are quotations made form individuals which might have some bias in them but overall the information provided seems to be factual.

DISPUTE

To dispute this claim I searched Google for the warmest year on record. I found this statement on the NOAA website: ” Global temperatures in 1998 were the warmest in the past 119 years, since reliable instrument records began, the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today.” What is important to understand about this website is that it was last updated on January 11, 1999.

Web Page Evaluation Checklist

Name of page: 1998 Warmest Year on Record, NOAA 99-1

Address/URL: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/jan99/noaa99-1.html

Date Accessed: 6/3/12

How did you find the page? I used the search engine Google to search for the warmest year on record

DOMAIN

What is the domain of the page? .gov

Do you feel that the domain type helps add to or lessen the page’s credibility? I believe this being a government site adds to the pages credibility.

AUTHOR/AUTHORITY

Is the author of the page identified? Yes

Is the author of the page an individual? Stepahine Kenitzer and Patricia Viets

If the author is an individual:

Is the author clearly affiliated with a corporation, institution, organization or group? No

If so, does this affiliation lend credibility to the author? No

Are the author’s educational, occupational or other credentials identified? No

Is the author a professional in the field or a layperson interested in the subject? Not stated.

Does the author present any other evidence that supports his/her ability to accurately present the information that he/she is presenting? No

Does the author display any obvious bias (religious, political, commercial or other)? No

Is the author the original creator of the information presented? No

If not, does the author acknowledge the sources of the information he/she is presenting? Yes

Does the author provide his/her contact information (usually an e-mail address)? No

In conclusion, do you feel that the author is qualified to present the information found on his/her web page? I am not sure there is not enough information provided about the author.

If the author is a corporation/institution/organization or other group:

Does the organization have a reputation for credibility? Not stated.

Does the organization explain its purpose, mission, goals, or guiding principles? No

Does the organization provide the names of its officers, editors, staff or other major participants? No

Does the organization provide contact information (phone, address, or at least an e-mail address)? No

Does the organization appear to filter the information appearing under its name? Not sure

Does the organization display any obvious signs of bias? No

In conclusion, do you think that this organization is qualified to present the information found on its web page? Unsure

INTENT

Is the purpose of the page clearly stated? No

What is or appears to be the purpose of the page? Inform

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Who appears to be the intended audience for this information/page?

Anyone interested in the topic.

Does the level or complexity of information provided, the vocabulary used, and the overall tone of the information/page match your needs? Yes

CURRENTNESS

When was the information on the page created or last updated? January 11, 1999

Are the dates of articles, news stories, newsletters, reports and other publications given? Yes

Is the page properly maintained or does it have broken links, outdated events calendars or other signs of neglect? Yes

RELIABILITY

Is the content peer-reviewed, authenticated by experts, or subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny? No

Does the page display any awards given by reliable sources, or link to favorable site reviews by reliable sources? No

Considering your answers to the previous questions, other observations you’ve made, and your overall sense of the page, how reliable does this source seem?

The source seems like it might be reliable but needs to be further researched on the organization to determine if the source would in fact be reliable.

CONCLUSIONS

Do you feel that this source is appropriate for your current assignment or information need? Yes

Would you recommend this source to a friend doing similar research? No

What reservations, if any, do you have about the source? There is a lack of information provided about the organization that needs to be evaluated. The information provided in the article is over 12 years old and has not been updated. This is not a reliable source to obtain information from.

Step 6

The talk link indicates that this article is subject to general sanctions. Basically I understand that this means that the article has to meet all rules, laws, and guidelines of the organization. I also understand that Wikipedia clearly states that the information should be verifiable and that users must understand that the article is an area of reference and should not be used as a source of information.

Step 7

The question that I choose under frequently asked questions was: “Can't the increase of CO₂ be from natural sources, like volcanoes or the oceans?”

This article http://presenters.climaterealityproject.org/news/article/545 shows how we are causing the increased emissions of C02 faster than the atmosphere can tolerate.

Step 8

I believe the “Back to old lede” sections shows that Wikipedia does not claim to be completely accurate in their information nor up to date. I feel that it is responsible that they do mention this information – but at the same time – I wonder how many people know where to find this claim. I know that I did not know this information was provided here and even though they are acknowledge the mistakes in their article they are not making this available or readily seen on the article. The normal viewer might assume all information is accurate and up to date and not know about the Talk section. I do not believe this makes the site more reliable for information, however it does make them more ethical in the information they are presenting.

Step 9

I believe, after looking at this site I can see why Wikipedia should be a source of ideas of information to further research. I could not find any credentials or experience on scientific topics for this user; however they are a contributor to the global warming page. Has this user been involved in the research process first hand or is their knowledge base from prior research they have completed. This is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, but a great place for locating ideas for research.

Step 10

Wikipedia could be integrated into classroom research activities as well as ethical activities. Wikipedia can be used for students to locate information and then be required to verify that information with other sites. Students could learn about ethics and how to use the information provided on Wikipedia and how to properly cite information from other locations when creating their own report. Wikipedia could also be used when discussing participatory web and web 2.0 how we now participate and create a majority of the information on the web – this would be great to tie into why students must understand to determine the credibility of the site with which they are obtaining information from.