This week, your task is to choose 1 valid source and 1 invalid source that you have used to research your crime. In your post, you need to include a link to the website/article and an evaluation of why it is or isn't a valid source. Your evaluation should include sound reasoning of what makes a valid source and how you can decide if a source is valid. Your blog post should be approximately 200 words long to sufficiently explain the validity.
My valid source is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11874276. This source is valid because the BBC is a news company and always uses an unbiased tone and phrases. Another reason it is valid is because nobody can edit the article themselves. The only people able to edit and change the information are the writer and the editor. This gives the source even more validity because random people cannot edit it and change the viewpoints to show the topic in a positive or negative light. My invalid source is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning. This source is invalid because of all the information it contains. This can be helpful but because there is so much information it is very difficult to find what you want and often takes up valuable time that could be used to create a profile. The second reason the source is invalid is because Wikipedia has an open policy where anybody anywhere can change the information presented or improve upon someone else’s work. This can be helpful by letting people correct what was wrong but can also let people write things completely unrelated to it on there.
ReplyDeleteReliable source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/02/the-shadowy-world-of-4chan-the-shock-post-site-that-hosted-the-private-jennifer-lawrence-photos/) This is a reliable source because the Washington Post are known to fact check what ever they write before being published so no false information is released, no other people can edit the information that is posted once its released meaning no one can change the correct news to false news and the information on their post, matches that which is posted by other major news companies in order to see whether or not the two or more sets of information given can relate back to each other. The Washington Post has also won awards for their journalism over the years, this shows that they are a high quality publisher and are most likely to published correct facts and not false ones.
ReplyDeleteUnreliable Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_photo_hack) This is an unreliable source because anybody has access to editing information displayed on Wikipedia's website meaning most information seen is incorrect. Wikipedia is also not known to check facts which are published, again leading to information that could not be used as a valid in an investigation.
Another reason that Wikipedia can't be relied on is because information posted about a certain topic may not even be related to that topic, meaning again that false information has been published about a certain topic and there is no validity over the source.
my reliable source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/world/bank-hackers-steal-millions-via-malware.html?_r=0 the reason why this is a reliable source is due to it being from a newspaper (new york times). Another reason is because it cannot be edited which means no one can randomly change the sources information. Also as it is a newspaper it cannot report false news, it has to have some sort of truth about it. another reason what makes the new york times a good reliable source is because it has won awards for publishing articles. this shows it can be trusted and is a great source for me to get information from.
ReplyDeleteMy unreliable source ishttps://www.linkedin.com/topic/group/icttf-international-cyber-threat-task-force?gid=3706589. this is because it is from a website called "likedin". Which i haven't heard of and it doesn't have many good reviews. Also it seems many people can add to the article what they like. This means that the information can be incorrect and not reliable as they do not come from a expert or someone could just add random information.
Reliable source – KEEMSTAR. (2014). Kim Dotcom Saves Xmas ! #DramaAlert Lizard Squad Stops XBOX & PSN DDOS ATTACKS! . Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIR4hAtMAno. Last accessed 28/11/2015.
ReplyDeleteI would say that this was a reliable source because this person reports on all things that happen in the gaming community. He also makes sure that he has all the correct evidence and also he backs up what he is saying with tweets, emails and texts from the people that have been involved in the situation. If he can the owner of the channel will get an interview to clear the air and make sure that all of the information is out there.
Unreliable source – William Turton. (2015). Lizard Squad hacker convicted on 50,000 hacking charges. Available: http://www.dailydot.com/crime/lizard-squad-indicted-julius-kivimaki/. Last accessed 28/11/2015.
I would say that this is my most unreliable source. This is because I have never heard of the website called The Daily Dot until now and the daily dot is an independent internet news page that reports on what is happening so it has no reason to be 100% reliable and it also meant that there isn’t a large number of people that are reading so it would lose a reputation if they miss some information. This website also docent have a lot of the information that I was looking for.
My reliable source is- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11414191/Hackers-steal-650-million-in-worlds-biggest-bank-raid.html
ReplyDeleteMartin Evans, Crime Correspondent
4:09PM GMT 15 Feb 2015
This is a reliable source because it’s from a credible news organisation that is usually reliable on their stories. There website also cannot be changed by just anyone only the person who wrote it so the information can’t be changed. Also as it is a well-known news organisation they are likely to have access to better information than most. Because they have a reputation to uphold they are much more likely to publish reliable information.
My unreliable source is- http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Russia-hacker-bank-FBI/2014/08/28/id/591378/
Andrew Burton
Thursday, 28 Aug 2014 08:22 AM
This source seems unreliable because isn’t a very well-known website so it doesn’t have much credibility and its sources may not be very reliable as they may not have access to the best information that there is. Also the website is full of adverts which isn’t how most good news sites have there sites.
My reliable source is - Dennis Fisher. (2009). Anatomy of the RBS worldpay hack. Available: https://threatpost.com/anatomy-rbs-worldpay-hack-111009/73073/. Last accessed 03rd Dec 2015.
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is a reliable source is because it is from a closed website where only publishers and editors can access and edit the articles and information on the site. however we as the public can send general information in for them to review but this still does not allow us to publish anything on there ourselves. as well as this it relates to news articles on well known news websites such as sky, which means it isn't false information being transferred.
My unreliable source is - McMillan, R. (2010). Alleged RBS WorldPay hacker extradited to U.S.. Available: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2519919/enterprise-applications/alleged-rbs-worldpay-hacker-extradited-to-u-s-.html. Last accessed 03rd Dec 2015.
The reason that I see this source as unreliable is because it states Alleged within the title which means whoever wrote the article didn't have information stating whether it was a true fact or not. not only this people can send false information o them to publish. despite this it is closed so on editors and publishers can access and edit articles on the site
My reliable source is (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11874276) this source is reliable as it can only be accessed by the author who is a member of the BBC –whose job it is to provide the correct information to the public. Because the article can only be accessed by the author it has much more legitimacy than my other source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning) because the wiki page can be accessed by anyone with an account and can sometimes be edited without. Because of this the validity of the information is held to a much lower degree, but does contain much more information than the BBC article because the wiki page contains many more editors who can gather much more information. The BBC article contains much more in-depth information on specific aspects of Bradley Manning’s life whereas the wiki page contains many more aspects of Bradley Manning’s life but with scarce information.
ReplyDelete