A term I came across while reading John Stewart’s Building Bridges Not Walls inspired what I would choose to write an academic paper on- dyssemia. Dyssemia describes a difficulty in the use of nonverbal signs or, basically, provides a condition to explain particular cases of the consistent inability to read and appropriately communicate various situations, conversations, etc.
As a rule, when writing academic papers I use one of three sites to base my research in- the e-journals or databases offered through the library’s site (I primarily use Academic Search Premier or LexisNexis, although for Anthropology classes- AnthroSource is fantastic!), EBSCO directly, or governmental/.org sites. The furthest I ever venture from those is sampling .edu pages! EBSCO, by the way, often pulls up horrid sources such as Cosmpolitan Magazine and Redbook (I’ve seen it!)- so I advise going through Academic journal sites for more grounded information.
I think my last few statements accurately summarize how I evaluate a source’s credibility. Typically, if a site is provided by either the government or an educational institution, the source will be credible. When writing academic papers concerning highly contested, controversial issues- I evaluate my source as to whether or not it is an interest group (bad sign for presenting a scholarly perspective), heavily biased without citing references for statistics offered, or not current (to the ‘day’). Although many people feel comfortable using Wikipedia, perhaps because they spend the time sifting out the credible sources- I avoid it like the plague. The is, for the most part, because in the beginning of college- I innocently tried it out, and was reprimanded strongly. But, from further exploring the site I have discovered that, if not reviewed properly, one can find themselves quoting Joe the Plumber, who decided to contribute to the ever-changing compilation called Wikipedia so that he could provide his opinion. A few months back I returned to my (incredibly small and backwoods) hometown and read the paper. The hot topic at the time was, of course, the election- and as you would expect from a town like John Day (Disclaimer- I have actually never LIVED there, I am from 40 miles away…it was just the nearest High School. So please, don’t ever label me a John Dayian..), the population was shaking in their boots with anger because they were certain the first thing Obama would do upon entering office would be to come take their guns away. (Nevermind the recession, wars, etc on hand- Obama wants THEIR guns..) Back to my point, the Letters to the Editor was scattered with angry accusations poorly supported with weak (and upon actually checked out, offensively inaccurate) references to Wikipedia. To me, this is an example of what Postman referred to as manufactured expertise. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, and what’s interesting is that- when we read the information provided, we assume accuracy and relevancy (information on topic reasonably current to date- according to Prof. Reed- this is at most a four year span). Basically, instead of diligently searching through credible sources, we often find ourselves guilty of making use of the readily-available, manufactured opinion turned fact. Anyone can be the expert. Also- Postman uses the analogy of the courtroom, where hearsay is not an allowable evidence- Wikipedia, and interest-group sites, offer the online version of hearsay- rather their opinion, or distorted soundbytes that work to prove their position.
I do not find information that is heavily biased, without acknowledging or leaving room for the opinion of the alternate perspectives, to be easily believable. To believe a source is grounded and trustworthy, I find myself looking to see that the material allows for a conscientious outlook, while still providing solid, strong facts.
Personally, I do not value information that does not come from a credible source- and likewise, if I provide inadequate, unworthy sources, then I would expect a professor to not value the perspective or research I provide. Perhaps this is the result of being a teacher’s daughter. More likely, it is that I am surrounded by intelligent peers, and I do, as they do, take myself seriously (academically speaking, I cannot guarantee that outside of the educational setting…)
Children who don’t fit in need help. By: Duke, Marshall P., Nowicki Jr., Stephen, Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 10581073, Apr95, Vol. 11, Issue 4
(Database: Professional Development Collection via E-journals provided by OSU)
Indicators of Dyssemia. http://www.fcs.utah.edu/info/cfdc/2610/dyssemia_indicators.pdf
More than words. Christopher Munsey.
Monitor on Psychology- APA (American Psychology Assocation) Online Volume 37, No. 8, September 2006.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep06/more.html
It is funny to me that you enjoy using Lexius Nexius. I have had many teachers tell me that I need to use it as one of my primary sites for information, but I just can seem to take myself to use it. In the past I have tried numerous times to find articles related to a search topic and have been unsuccessful. It is very frustrating! I know the internet cannot always be a reliable source but as of right now it is my favorite source to use.