Key to Evaluating Sources

"Musk, Wozniak and Hawking urge ban on warfare AI and autonomous weapons" http://gu.com/p/4b2em/sbl

            The Guardian is a highly respected newspaper of the UK. This is a news article that has been reviewed by an editor, and so it has undergone a verification process to make sure that it has the necessary objectivity and does not misrepresent sources (otherwise the newspaper could be sued for libel).

            The purpose of the article is to inform the public about the views of three prominent technologists about the use of autonomous artificial intelligence with regard to warfare. The article does not side with their views or against them. The author is merely presenting the views for the public to be informed, and that if they want to know more, they can research further.

            Obviously the source is timely given the date, but even if it was ten years old, it is still relevant. The only time it would become irrelevant is if (or when) we achieve true artificial intelligence and the views of the three people are either verified or proved false.

            This is an excellent source to use because of the authority of the three people as technologists. The author of the article is a well-respected journalist with some scientific credentials (though not in this field), so he understands how to write about science and technology.

"A Day of Glass" https://youtu.be/6Cf7IL_eZ38

            The video is produced by the Corning corporation, a well-known maker of glass, and developer of technological innovations such as Gorilla Glass, used in nearly all touch screen (especially smartphones) devices. If anyone has an expertise about glass, it’s Corning.

However, this also makes them highly biased. They want people to become invested in their vision of the future, which means they will make more sales and their stock prices will go up. It is in their interest that people fully believe the ideas put forth by this video as it helps their bottom line.

The coda at the beginning of the video foretells that this is the future. It is a future which Corning wants to envision, and while their technological research may be on the verge of these kinds of devices, there’s no way to know if they will be successful, or how this technology will be used in the future.

This is, ultimately, an advertisement. At best it is a piece of science fiction, which illustrates the corporation’s view of tomorrow. This source could be used as a hypothetical to elaborate on different views on what the future may hold, but it can in no way be used as a source of authority.

"Cold War Update" http://on.cc.com/1rGvIQA

            Comedy Central is a cable channel interested in entertaining people with humor. Stephen Colbert is likewise a comedian (of impeccable talent) who lampoons and satirizes real news stories for entertainment purposes. Often there is relevancy to the points he makes, but they are always exaggerated for comedic effect.

            This cannot be used as a source for a research paper because it misrepresents the actual scale of the news. It can make someone aware of certain news issues, but for real information and authority, other research must be done.

"Top 30 Innovations Of The Last 30 Years" http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/19/innovation-internet-health-entrepreneurs-technology_wharton.html

            Forbes is a highly respected business magazine. Like newspapers, magazines go through the editorial process. They are allowed to show more bias than newspaper reporting, but this article is a straightforward list reporting the findings from Knowledge@Wharton.

            A quick search of the internet reveals: “Knowledge@Wharton is the online business analysis journal of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.” Results of this judgement and analysis would doubtless be better viewed at the University’s website or in the journal, but this does not disqualify the Forbes list as being valid.

            The article goes at great lengths to detail how the list was determined, and the qualifications of those who judged the list. Individual readers may disagree with the specific order of the list, but that doesn’t invalidate the list itself.

            Likewise, the timeliness of the article is perfectly fine. Though it is no longer 2009, the list never claims that it is going to forecast into the future. It deals specifically with the time period of 1979-2009.

This piece is perfect to use regarding the technological leaps that have been made, as well as showing trends for adopting technology, and how people value that technology.

"Because There Are No Spare Earths" http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/blog/2015/6/because-there-are-no-spare-earths

            Government websites (specifically US government websites) are among the best available for trusting the material. Anything that goes on a government web page must be heavily scrutinized and edited for correctness. However, this is a blog post, which means it hasn’t gone through this extensive process, so care must be taken with this source. More analysis must be done.

            Laura Tenenbaum works for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and teaches oceanography at Glendale Community College, which gives her the credentials necessary to write about climate and environmental issues with authority.

            This largely offsets the problem of a blog because she has the credentials to speak as an expert regarding this subject. The article is current, having been published in 2015, so this should be considered a trustworthy source (though it may be useful to corroborate it with other sources).

           

"Goliath v Goliath: who will reign supreme in the Google v Amazon wars?" http://gu.com/p/42vem/sbl

            Once again on The Guardian, however, the address bar shows this to be a blog, as well as the label to the left, which states “Technology blog” so we must right away be suspect of the editorial process used for this article. Without editors to verify the content, there is no way to be sure that what was written is truly representative of the facts.

            Reading through this, it’s impossible not to feel the bias the author has. A little research on the author reveals that he once worked for Google. While this gives him relevant experience, it can also color his perceptions. There is definitely an anti-corporation bias to the piece where the author feels that mega corporations will take over, reducing the value of individual people and the diversity of business.

            If this had undergone the editorial process, it would be a good source, but because it hasn’t, the bias truly stands out. The information is not necessarily bad, but suspect. How do we know to trust this? This article should only be used in corroboration with other articles of the same nature, or in cataloging the thoughts of those who worked for giant corporations such as Google and Amazon.

"Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America http://amzn.com/0521646537

            The book is the source, not the Amazon web page. Viewing the inside of the book to review its table of contents is very informative. The book lists a long bibliography, which is also viewable. Such a list of authoritative sources lends credence to the book’s authority. Likewise, this is a nonfiction published book by Cambridge University Press, known for its scholarly publications.

            A quick search on the authors reveals that they are both economists and technological historians, making them qualified to write on the subject.

            Books are slower to produce than articles, so this is not as timely, but the subject material is not about the most current technology, but technology in the 20^th century, so it is perfectly timely. This is an excellent source to use regarding any of the technologies found within its pages, and for presenting historical timelines of technology and their adoption by the people

Kindle Voyage http://amzn.com/B00GDQDRPK

            This page is information about the product the Kindle Voyage. However, Amazon owns the Kindle, and manufactures it, which automatically makes the information found on this page suspect. The information has not gone through any kind of editorial process to verify its veracity. Claims regarding details of the Kindle cannot be verified in any way from this page.

            Comments by reviewers are also not valid simply because anyone may post a comment (good or bad). For good, objective information regarding the Kindle Voyage, look to an independent web site or publication such as Consumer Reports or other magazines. Independent technology review websites are also viable.

            Ultimately, Amazon wants to sell Kindles, so everything on this page is designed to make that happen. Like with the Corning video “A Day of Glass” this is an advertisement, and cannot be trusted.