malepregnancy.com
What is your immediate assessment of the site? Is it reliable information? Does it come from a reliable source?
My immediate assessment is that it is not reliable, due to the gimmicky nature of the website, the dubious endorsements and magazine quotes, and the fact that the subject is the author.
Now take a quick look at this site: http://martinlutherking.org/
What is your immediate assessment of the site? Is it reliable information? Does it come from a reliable source?
My immediate assessment is that it is unreliable, due to the gimmicky nature of the site, the obviously politically skewed content, and the obvious conservative bias of its source (Stormfront).
Activity:
Analyze the two websites you previewed above using the specific information asked for on page 355 in A Writer's Reference.
1. http://www.malepregnancy.com/
Authorship:
Sponsorship:
The site is sponsored by the Hospital-Dwayne Medical Center. It is a .com website, so it is not part of any formal medical research group, but possibly a commercial website.
Purpose & Audience:
The purpose of the website is to showcase the alleged pregnancy of Dr. Lee, and the audience is both supporters and detractors of the ‘male pregnancy’ phenomenon.
Currency:
The website itself seem somewhat out of date, as pictures on the banner do not show up properly.
2. http://martinlutherking.org/
Authorship:
The website is authored by Stormfront, which is a noted libertarian and right-wing conservative website.
Sponsorship:
Stormfront also provides the same sponsorship as it does authorship. The site has a .org designation, noting it as a legitimately recognized organization.
Purpose & Audience:
The purpose of the website is to discredit Martin Luther King’s legitimacy, and to ‘educate’ people on the illicit and damaging nature of King’s work (allegedly). The audience for the website are the kind of people who already believe these sorts of conspiracy theories, and therefore would truly educate no one.
Currency:
Website is extremely out of date – all that exists is some outdated data and news articles from the 90s, and various scattered facts and figures of ill repute.
3. Website #1 that you might use for your research project (list name and URL): “How California’s Online Education Pilot Will End College As We Know It.” http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/how-californias-new-online-education-pilot-will-end-college-as-we-know-it/
Authorship:
Gregory Ferenstein, a tech blogger for TechCrunch and other blogs like the Huffington Post. He has a Master’s in Mathematical Behavioral Science, and blogs about a number of topics.
Sponsorship:
The post is for the major technology blog TechCrunch, which is sponsored by AOL, Inc., a large tech and electronics company.
Purpose & Audience:
The purpose of the piece is to get Tech Crunch’s audience (tech-minded people) excited about the prospect of online education as opposed to traditional education.
Currency:
The site is incredibly up to date, with the post coming just a few months ago; all of the site’s links are also current.
4. Website #2 that you might use for your research project (list name and URL): “California’s Move Toward MOOCs Sends Shock Waves, but Key Questions Remain Unanswered.” http://chronicle.com/article/A-Bold-Move-Toward-MOOCs-Sends/137903/
Authorship:
Sponsorship:
The blog is the Chronicle of Higher Education, an online version of a well-respected publication in the field of education.
Purpose & Audience:
The purpose of the article is to explain the impending legislation for online courses in California, and the implications for educators. The audience for the Chronicle is higher-educated teachers and workers in the field of education.
Currency:
The publication is incredibly current, with the story being only a few months old and all of the links being current as well.
Source Evaluation
Review your reflections on all the websites’ authorship, sponsorship, purpose/audience, and currency. After each Website below, respond to the following questions: What conclusions can you make about the credibility or bias of each site? What leads you to draw such conclusions?
1. http://www.malepregnancy.com/
This site is incredibly biased towards Dr. Lee, as he is the author and it mostly revolves around promotion of his experiment. The slapdash nature of the website also makes it seem somewhat unprofessional and not credible.
2. http://martinlutherking.org/
What little I can see of the now-defunct site is filled with poorly formatted, missing links and text, and it was hosted by Stormfront, a noted libertarian and far-right conservative website with a clear political bias.
3. Website #1 that you might use for your research project (list name and URL):
“How California’s Online Education Pilot Will End College As We Know It.” http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/how-californias-new-online-education-pilot-will-end-college-as-we-know-it/
This website is a current journalistic tech blog that will discuss the importance of tech-related issues; the story in particular is current, relevant and well-researched, and the author has written on such subjects before. I believe it is credible.
4. Website #2 that you might use for your research project (list name and URL):
“California’s Move Toward MOOCs Sends Shock Waves, but Key Questions Remain Unanswered.” http://chronicle.com/article/A-Bold-Move-Toward-MOOCs-Sends/137903/
This publication is an online version of a reputable education journal, and is very current in its coverage; I believe it has a credible grasp on the issues at hand regarding online education and its positives/negatives.
