Week 5, Source Credibility

I would research how people define themselves via blogging mediums.  How they present themselves though a blog and which elements of the blog are used to create an expression of self.  For sources, I would use someone’s blog as an example.  Say, this blog http://incrediblehucqeem.blogspot.com/ would be one source I use. The credibility of this source isn’t grounded in research but is the source of information that the research will be based upon. This sort of credibility would be immensely dependant upon my interpretation of its importance and relevance to my topic. I do not have any other people who have validated this source; but there are 7 people who “follow” this blog. So do they validate it? I would say in academia it wouldn’t go far, I couldn’t cite how the person described themselves to make a valid point unless that point was supported by the research conducted by a recognized piece of research. Neil Postman would say “recognized” would mean it was conducted by an expert. An expert, according to Postman is, “to concentrate on one field of knowledge, sift through all that is available, eliminate that which has no bearing on the problem, and use what is left to assist in solving the problem.” The people who are allowed to practice the sift, eliminate and use information to solve problems are those who have gone through the universities processes and acquired degrees as a result. Rarely is it valid for someone such as the author of my blog listed above to be accepted as a reliable source of information. Especially when they describe themselves as follows:

“1.happy go lucky 2.love to make friends 3.sexy 4.charming 5.kind 6.and all da good things…huhu”

I think the strongest flaw in the “expertise” of my blog source is the use of slang. How would an expert sift this information? The first question would be: what is “huhu”? Is it a beverage? It is one of the items making up “all da good things” so it must be wonderful whatever it is. Maybe it is a type of dance. If “huhu” is how this person laughs, that is simply unfortunate because I’d assume they are a smoker. If this person smokes to the point it affects their laughter that cannot be a part of “all da good things”. If this list is in any way correlated, #3 may provide a clue as to what a “huhu” is, but the options down that particular alley are too many for me to articulate. So, by the method of my straight shooting logic I’ve eliminated laughter and misc. body parts; so “huhu” must be either a delicious beverage or a dance. But it doesn’t advocate the blog as a credible source.

Now that I have defined what an expert I could use our textbook, “Online Communication.” Andrew Wood works at San Jose State University and Matthew Smith hails from Wittenberg University. If they both are tied to the system of education which produces experts, it is more viable that they are reliable sources of information themselves. Further evaluation wouldn’t reveal much from the textbook, but it is a printed source. And we tend to trust printed sources more because someone, somewhere has validated it so that puts us at ease.

Another more credible source would be from the American Psychological Association’s website. An article titled, “Posting on the Internet: An opportunity for self (and other) reflection”  that was submitted by Dr. Stephen Behnke APA Ethics Director, would be more legitimate as a source than the “Blogger” page. This is because the author has a doctoral designation and has been validated by the APA.

As a professor evaluating a students perception of credibility I would form opinions based on the sources presented. If the sources were derived from places that have ties to academia (either through the participants, or organization) then I would feel the student spent more time sifting through the miscellaneous information on the internet.

 

1.      Wood, Andrew F., and Matthew J. Smith. Online Communication, Linking Technology, Identity, & Culture. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005.

2.      Hacqueem. “Incrediblehucqueem’s blogspot.” Incrediblehucqueem’s blogspot. 08 Feb. 2009 <http://incrediblehucqeem.blogspot.com/>. 

3.      Behnke, Stephen. “Posting on the Internet: An opportunity for self (and other) reflection.” Monitor on Psychology. Jan. 2007. American Psychological Association. 8 Feb. 2009 <http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan07/ethics.html>.

Advertisement