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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 20th
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
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.
