What are good sources to cite?: Difference between revisions
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
The hallmarks of a bad site are unreliable authors with unverifiable credentials. Their content is often driven by the average internet user and cannot be trusted. Some examples of such pages are ''Blogs, Personal Websites,'' and ''Wikipedia''. | The hallmarks of a bad site are unreliable authors with unverifiable credentials. Their content is often driven by the average internet user and cannot be trusted. Some examples of such pages are ''Blogs, Personal Websites,'' and ''Wikipedia''. | ||
== Peer-Reviewed == | == Peer-Reviewed == | ||
== Scholarly Articles == | == Scholarly Articles == | ||
Revision as of 17:56, 11 July 2013
Importance of using good sources
Using proper sources build audience trust in a reader. They allow readers to verify what an author has to say and delve more deeply into the topic with ease. Incorrectly cited or untrustworthy sources cause readers to question the validity of your claims.
Sources to Avoid[1]
The hallmarks of a bad site are unreliable authors with unverifiable credentials. Their content is often driven by the average internet user and cannot be trusted. Some examples of such pages are Blogs, Personal Websites, and Wikipedia.
Peer-Reviewed
Scholarly Articles
Bias
Variety
Using Wikipedia
Sources
- ↑ Fleming, Grace. 5 Bad Sources. About.com, 2013