Issues of Credibility

I decided to search for a particular topic with Google to come up with a selection of websites that would come up with a dramatic range of information. I chose the topic of the assassination of JFK because I knew it would provide hits to credible sources of information and hits that were absurdly un-credidble.

The first site I chose was a site with the suffix ".edu" (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/) I assumed that having ".edu" it would be credible in that it is academic and perhaps would have links to papers written on the subject. This is based on Burbrules' first suggestion to recognizing credible sources: indentifying markers or "proxies." I then glanced at the overall layout and visual quality of the site. It did not strike me as very "academic" at all. The site has a grainy picture of Lee Harvey Oswald (who I could not recognize right away--perhaps because I was expecting a picture of JFK) and the text that does not provide much of a summary of the site's values. The first text is an index that provide links to do other kinds of searching (and therefore metadata?) and further down is a section that allows for futher searching through Newsgroup Archives and Google (which I had already searched!) This is a direct example of what Burbrules refers to as a "self-sustaining reference system." There is no indication of who created the site or who produced the information on it other than in the web address (who is mcadams?) nor any clear telling of what institution that this ".edu" is affiliated with. These are all problems and I would conclude that this site is a 5 on a scale of 0-10 of credibility.

The next site I chose was a site with a ".com" (http://www.jfk-online.com/home.html). This site was chosen at random to compare to the first and immediately, after examining the layout and visaul quality, I determined it to be slightly better than the first. First, it had a clear image of JFK. It did have an advertisement for amazon.com at the top (a common occurrence on a .com site?) and then a link to support the site monetarily suggesting that it is supported by companies and individuals. Then there are several links to the web pages that deal with the subject I was searching for (metadata?). After that are links to organizations that presumably support the site, including the History Channel of which the site claims to be a member in some way. This provides a user of the site to determine credibility based on what they think of supporting organizations. There is also a link on for a "Skeptic Ring" which is example of the a community of like-mided people who share common interest in this topic who, if joined, can be communicated with in order to determine credibility. Overall I give this site a 6 on a scale of 0-10 for credibility.