Filters
Question type
Correct Answer
verified
Common answers will include Google and Wikipedia and these are certainly good starting points with the provisos discussed above. However, your institution's library is likely to offer a wealth of material not readily accessible online, including books, academic encyclopaedias and subject dictionaries, with the additional advantage that the librarians are close at hand for advice.
Correct Answer
verified
Common answers will include Google and Wikipedia and these are certainly good starting points with the provisos discussed above. However, your institution's library is likely to offer a wealth of material not readily accessible online, including books, academic encyclopaedias and subject dictionaries, with the additional advantage that the librarians are close at hand for advice.
Correct Answer
verified
While Wikipedia may be more accurate than often supposed, most entries can be edited by anyone, including those who may be biased, uninformed, misguided, or even malicious. A sound, accurate entry can in theory change quickly to a gravely erroneous one and if the topic is arcane, might stay wrong for a protracted period until a competent editor corrects it. To use Wikipedia effectively:
-Do not cite it; instead, use it to get an overview of the subject and to find potentially more reliable sources.
-Check the page ratings at the bottom of the entry, taking note of the number of ratings as well as the scores, but remember that these are also potentially open to bias.
-Check the 'Talk' and 'View history' pages. Treat with caution any entries that have little discussion and few edits.
-Remember that Wikipedia entries can change very quickly; for topical subjects (e.g. financial crises), information present in the morning might have been removed or changed substantially by evening. If you are allowed to cite Wikipedia entries, always include the exact date of retrieval (and perhaps even the time); better still, check and refer to the sources the entry cites.
Correct Answer
verified
While Wikipedia may be more accurate than often supposed, most entries can be edited by anyone, including those who may be biased, uninformed, misguided, or even malicious. A sound, accurate entry can in theory change quickly to a gravely erroneous one and if the topic is arcane, might stay wrong for a protracted period until a competent editor corrects it. To use Wikipedia effectively:
-Do not cite it; instead, use it to get an overview of the subject and to find potentially more reliable sources.
-Check the page ratings at the bottom of the entry, taking note of the number of ratings as well as the scores, but remember that these are also potentially open to bias.
-Check the 'Talk' and 'View history' pages. Treat with caution any entries that have little discussion and few edits.
-Remember that Wikipedia entries can change very quickly; for topical subjects (e.g. financial crises), information present in the morning might have been removed or changed substantially by evening. If you are allowed to cite Wikipedia entries, always include the exact date of retrieval (and perhaps even the time); better still, check and refer to the sources the entry cites.
Correct Answer
verified
Peer reviewed journals are generally con...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
Peer reviewed journals are generally con...
View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
There are many potential problems with Internet sources, but most arise from the inability to verify the article's claims or from the author's selective use of evidence. Treat cautiously any web pages that:
-simply assert claims without providing references, and for those that do, check to determine the quality of those references
-that have anonymous authors, authors who cannot be contacted, or authors who either do not list qualifications or list every qualification they've ever gained
-that use overly emotive language or, conversely, that use overly technical language - this can be an attempt to impress or obfuscate rather than inform
-that are out-of-date - this will depend on the how fast the subject is developing
-that have some apparent vested interest - evidence regarding economic performance, for example, is likely to differ substantially depending on the
whether the web page is owned by the current Government or an opposition party.
As a rule, the best way to check reliability is to seek verification from other
sources; if the claims are essentially similar, the information is more likely to be reliable.
Correct Answer
verified
There are many potential problems with Internet sources, but most arise from the inability to verify the article's claims or from the author's selective use of evidence. Treat cautiously any web pages that:
-simply assert claims without providing references, and for those that do, check to determine the quality of those references
-that have anonymous authors, authors who cannot be contacted, or authors who either do not list qualifications or list every qualification they've ever gained
-that use overly emotive language or, conversely, that use overly technical language - this can be an attempt to impress or obfuscate rather than inform
-that are out-of-date - this will depend on the how fast the subject is developing
-that have some apparent vested interest - evidence regarding economic performance, for example, is likely to differ substantially depending on the
whether the web page is owned by the current Government or an opposition party.
As a rule, the best way to check reliability is to seek verification from other
sources; if the claims are essentially similar, the information is more likely to be reliable.
Showing 1 - 4 of 4
Related Exams