In my opinion, a credible source is one whose arguments and facts are supported and peer-reviewed by certified experts in their specific fields such as scholarly articles and official government websites. I determine the credibility of a source by looking at several factors such as the author's background, the date it is published, and the type of source. I believe the author's reputation contributes to the credibility of a source, for example, an academic journal published by a professor in a prestigious university is much more credible than a blog post on the internet as it has gone through a rigorous review process. Furthermore, the date when a source is published is also another essential factor to consider since an outdated source may
not be relevant to the current situation. Lastly, the type of source that it underlies matters the most to me because sources from an unfamiliar website, for example, are likely to be biased towards certain interest which undermine its credibility. Therefore, by considering those three factors, we can easily discern and distinguish which sources are trustworthy and formulate an objective judgment whether something is true or not without being biased.
For example, if the author provides statistics to prove their case, it's important to check the date, location, etc., of when this data was collected. Just because authors may have an eyewitness, survey, or results from a scientific study, doesn't mean that their data is reliable. Their info may be subjective and therefore, not trustworthy. Moreover, some writings can include broad generalizations, assumptions, and omission of facts. This can mislead you into believing something that is not true which is why you should make your own inferences whilst reading. When making an inference, figure out the author's purpose, take note to the details, address the facts they give, inspect their usage of words, and back your inference with
...a known source but usually the source is obvious. Lastly, black leaflets have a stated source which, however, is false. For example, the Allies invented non-existent anti-Nazi groups in Germany. On these leaflets Allied powers printed false information that attempted to challenge Hitler and the Nazis in attempt to lead others into rebellion.
Eyewitness identification and testimony play a huge role in the criminal justice system today, but skepticism of eyewitnesses has been growing. Forensic evidence has been used to undermine the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the leading cause of false convictions in the United States is due to misidentifications by eyewitnesses. The role of eyewitness testimony in producing false confessions and the factors that contribute to the unreliability of these eyewitness testimonies are sending innocent people to prison, and changes are being made in order to reform these faulty identification procedures.
At the outbreak of the Great War, men and women alike rushed to see how they could help their country, but only a small number of them were able to tell their story. The first company of men rushing to fight in the war was war-lovers such as the Grenfells, but many of them were killed in battle before they were able to share their experiences. The second assembly of men was the middle class workers, and this is where the majority of the written stories come from. The third group to go to war was the lowest class of men, the farmers, servants, and peasants, but many of these men were illiterate and therefore unable to write down their accounts. While there was certainly more than three core of soldiers, this is the most organized way of grouping men who went to war. While women offering aid were often safer than the men, females’ opinions and experiences in this age were not highly valued, so their memories often died with them. However, some of these stories grace books today, offering insight, painful and beautiful, into how life was during World War One.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
Are assertions in the source based on reliable evidence? Are sources cited? How are you able to tell? They do list where they get their info from within the paragraphs or quotes.
Primary sources are “written by someone who was there at the time.” [308] These sources are usually the closest piece of information we can find that relate to the topic that is being studied. Primary sources, although, may not be as true as we want them to be or they should be. They are often described as the “bedrock of history.” [308] For example, when learning about the assassination of a president or a revolution, we might just get this information from our history book or a website we read it on like “History.com,” but this does not prove that the information is factual because there is no source document or proof that this is how the event happened or the causes of it. So how reliable are these sources? Through eye-witness testimonies,
Supporting SPECIFIC evidence from your life, from the real world, from history, or from literature:
To have a good paper you need good, reliable sources. Smithson states that if papers that are endorsed by corporations and government are good and reliable. Also if it is reviewed by experts in that field or published by a well known publisher. If a company, or person that might have bias writes the paper then one should find additional information to support it.
Upon evaluation, the journal article “ Mental Health in Deployed and Non-deployed Veteran Men and Women in Comparison With their Civilian Counterparts” by Mark W. Hoglund and Rebecca M. Schwartz published by Military Medicine in Volume 19 proves to be a moderately reliable source due to the academic presentation which includes data, personal interviews, qualified sources and a balanced argument that have points that support their argument. Mark W. Hoglund was a project manager for Family Health services, he served as a Human Resources professional in three different organizations, and studies Adult Career planning and Development. Rebecca M. Schwartz is a clinical psychologist, assistant professor, and a graduate of public health. Although Schwartz never served in military and majority of her studies are for HIV in kids and women this leads her to have lot of information about the mental being.
The challenge I originally faced was the lack of responses from primary sources, such as Jess Clark from MultiplicityAndMe, an individual female who possessed five male alters – illustrating what healthy relationships look like in a ‘system’. Responding to my first enquiry, her interview looked promising but fell through after I received no comments after that. Soon after beginning my source analysis, I decided to email a family relative who suffered with the disorder and the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), who listed several credible and experienced professionals throughout their website. This was a good decision as I turned a challenge into an advantage by persevering and using my research skills to my benefit, the outcome providing me with invaluable information.
This historical investigation allowed me to experience both how historians use methods available to them to gain information, and the challenges that the historian faces as a result of their investigation. Primarily, I analyzed and gathered newspaper articles, books, and statistical studies surrounding the event, in question. The challenge with this method was in the uniformity of opinions surrounding Nader; no single article I looked at other than the scientific study thought otherwise of Nader’s effect on the election, and in the context of the information age, historians, including myself in this study, have to determine whether or not provided information is reliable or not. This was especially prevalent in Nader’s novel, where he writes
First of all, Wikipedia articles include a works cited list with the sources. At the end of every web page is a reference list. The page about London, for example, has a list of 214 articles or books that were quoted (“London” par 11). After every quote or paraphrased sentence a link is placed to the relevant reference. The reference is also clickable, so that the reader can look up the article. When a source is lacking, a note is placed on top of the page, indicating that “[t]his article does not cite any references or sources” (“Henry” par 1). This can be seen on the page about King Henry VII, where there is only one footnote representing a source (“Henry” par 9). There are not enough sources quoted, so an editor has placed a note on top of the page to show that this page is not fully trustable. Concluding, Wikipedia pages are useful, because their works cited list makes them reliable. The lack of a source is noted, so that the reader is fully aware of possible false information.
The introduction of the internet to modern society has brought about a new age of information relation. Since there is no longer a need to wait until the next print day, news from all over the world is available at a person’s fingertips within hours or even minutes of the event. With this advent of such easily accessible information, new problems for the news media have also arisen. Aside from potentially losing good economic standing because newspapers are no longer being purchased in the quantities they used to be, the credibility of the information itself is also put into question. No one would argue that credibility of news sources is unimportant, but there is a discrepancy in what takes precedence; economy and speed or getting the information out correctly at the first publishing by taking the time to make sure all facts are checked. The importance of having a system of checks on all information submitted is paramount. People trust what they read and believe it to be so without always questioning. If all information were to not be checked thoroughly, there would be instances where people read an article only for information included to be wrong and they go on believing such information. This can be very dangerous as misinformed people make misinformed decisions. With an increase in errors being made by citizen bloggers and even major publications, many are worried that journalistic ethics and credibility in the news media are being sacrificed in order to maintain swiftness in the news circuit and to retain personal profits. Though getting information to the masses quickly is a major part of the media’s importance, this should not mean that the credibility of that information being presented should be sacrificed for it...
Trustworthy Sources of Knowledge There are a lot of different sources that provide a person with knowledge. The sand is a sand. These are books, websites, the media, personal experiences. authorities, reasoning, emotions, perception, language, etc. Nevertheless, people don’t always trust the information they get from all of these sources, and thus most of the time they end up trusting.