The reason why I felt the tinyurl.com was the most reliable source was because tinyurl is the most
qualified when it comes to the determinates of how reliable something is. Everything is just placed
in front of you and is yours for the taking. It is an education based site, which primarily focuses on
getting accurate information out about their subject. While getting this info the fact that this article
was written in 2008 comes out which gives more of a validation. The currency may determine
validation because with data always changing, your references and sources always need to be
up to date it so it shows the most current findings. Another reason why tinyurl is the most reliable
is because all information is meet and if you cant find it there they have direct links to other
sites where you may find your answer.
The reason why I felt that saynotogmos.com was the least reliable source was because when looking
at it, it looks like a random person just threw this together. If i had the time I could of created
a more legitimate cite than this. Though this site has lots of information you have no type of
validation. No author, no references, I have no idea where their facts where taken from.
For all I know they could of made up all those facts. Also information that they do have is extremely
cluttered which makes things hard to read. With all these factors of reliability not meet plus more
I would recommend not using this site if researching for anything.
I respectfully disagree with the ranking of the reliability of the websites; I put Monsanto last, and the SayNo website second. We agree on the first choice. I do think they (SayNo) need to improve their organization and appearance to be taken seriously, but in my opinion, they do have credible scientific articles. They do have an agenda, clearly, but it's stated outright. One of the elements of a free society is how available information is to the general people. Information found by the people for the people, if their sources are credible, is what leads to a fair and just society. To me it appears that the PhD scientists who have authored articles on their website are credible; they just have strong views that are contrary to the mainstream...or at least contrary to the huge agribusiness corporations that are promoting the safety and efficacy of gmos.
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with your opinion on the reliability of "SayNo". I agree with what you said about the free society and how it gets out the little voice. I think that is missing from the mainstream news these days. However, just because I like what it stands for, doesn't make it reliable. When some one's object is to persuade, they are going to present ideas very one sided. Although some or most of the information might be accurate, you miss a lot of the other side of the argument. Being educated on one side of a subject, I feel, is worse than staying out of the argument entirely.
ReplyDelete