The
acronym CRAAP stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.
Using CRAAP on the World Wide Web helps sort out relevant information that we
may need among millions of irrelevant mumbo-jumbo. It is common knowledge that
when a search string is entered in a search engine thousand or even millions of
search results pop up, but how do we narrow down these result using CRAAP?
We’d
be exploring two websites, www.justfacts.com
and www.factcheck.org. We’d be looking
to see if they followed the CRAAP criteria.
C
– Currency
The
information on this website is not mostly current. That’d mean the site is
usually being updated maybe not daily or regularly, but it’s still active. The
links are working well without any hassle. I’m not particularly sure I’d want
to get information from this site because most of the out dated information doesn’t
get updated or I never saw any updated or revised version. The site has a “Just
Facts Daily” section that seems misleading because the facts there aren’t daily,
more like bimonthly. The organization was formalized in November 2007.
R
– Relevance
There
seem to be some relevant information on there but none that caught my interest.
I’m presently not researching on anything which makes all the fact mostly
irrelevant. Some of the facts about a subject is a bit too detailed which is
unnecessary and may lead to distortion/confusion in the facts. It might be
helpful if the site’s information were concise, simple, and precise.
A
– Authority
Research from Just Facts is a compilation of materials
which has been cited by universities, major media outlets, prominent
commentators, scholarly journals, and government entities at local, state and
national levels as stated in the ‘Who are we” section in the about us tab. James D. Agresti and Stephen F. Cardone appear
to be the two guys running and calling the shots. I don’t think they’re affiliated
to any company or organization. They thrive off donation from loyal audiences.
The URL indicates that it’s a company run website.
A
– Accuracy
The
Information on the website is somewhat accurate. Almost everything has some
link to its original source or a citation that shows where it was retrieved
from. I don’t have vast knowledge in most of the topic I saw, so I can’t tell
as much if all the information were accurate. Proper grammar and spelling is
apparent. I crossed checked a few information on the site, and I’m certain all
that I check were accurate. I wouldn’t say the site looks unprofessional, but
it looks very simple and scanty. Language wasn’t too harsh.
P
– Purpose
The
founder s of this site aim at providing facts for the general public to make
people more aware of the environment they live in. There aren’t noticeable advertising
present. They might be trying to impose their conservative views as they said
everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don’t think they are trying to create
rift among the people. They don’t have a statement of purpose, but a standard
of credibility. It defeats the purpose if you have to exclude facts because they
don’t meet their standard of credibility.
C-
Currency
The
information is more recent compared to that on just facts. It seems the site
gets updated regularly but not daily. The most recent date it was last updated
was September 13. The links on the site are functional, and the site has been
in operation since December 2003. I actually found a link that isn’t functional
on this site dated back to 2012. That link was supposed to be a reference to a
fact. It may be the case that it’s an outdated fact so it was removed.
R-
Relevance
Most
of the information if not all are important on a political stand point.
Information is appropriately detailed with decent depth without boring the readers
unlike just facts that has everything in your face. The information provided is
necessary and sufficient for any age group except infant. Tags were present on
this website compared to none on just facts.
A
– Authority
The
information on this website are gathered by a group of people listed in the “our
staff” tab. These staffs contact information are present for the audiences if
they need to ask questions. All the staff’s credential and qualification were
presented unlike just facts that had just the president and vice president’s
name and credentials. There’s a comprehensive list of those funding or
sponsoring the site which I think is great because people like to know how
things are run. The URL indicates that it’s a organization run website.
A
– Accuracy
The
information on this website is accurate to a good extent. I can’t independently
verify if it’s accurate in its entirety, but I’d like to believe so because its
authority seems to have the credentials needed to report accurate facts. The
information does fit well with what I know by watching the news. Citation and
references aren’t apparent or obviously listed, but I’m sure if I asked for the
reference I’d be given. All the information on this site can be verified by checking
other websites like www.cnn.com. The website
is of professional standard, looks neat and appealing. There appear to be no
obvious bias or conservative views as just facts indicated. The language used
is of high quality and not overly harsh or emotional.
P
– Purpose
The
aim of this website as indicated in their mission statement is to reduce the
level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics, to monitor the factual
accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads,
debates, speeches, interviews and news releases, and to increase public
knowledge and understanding. I don’t think they’re trying to sell anything or
advance a particular ideology. This website has a statement of purpose.
In
conclusion, both sites have their advantages and disadvantages, but factcheck
is a better website with regards to researching politics in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment