Asked by xen
Which of the following might be considered a valid source for online research? Select all that apply.
(2 points)
Responses
the National Archives
the National Archives
a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a “history nerd”
a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a “history nerd”
a Wikipedia article
a Wikipedia article
a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
a .org website that was last updated in 2008
a .org website that was last updated in 2008
a .com website with its own online store
a .com website with its own online store
a .gov website
a .gov website
a website with claims that you can’t verify at another source
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
Valid choices (might be acceptable, with evaluation)
- the National Archives — reputable primary-source repository.
- a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty — can be valid if the author is an expert and sources are cited.
- a .org website that was last updated in 2008 — possibly valid depending on the topic and whether the information needs to be current; check authorship and sources.
- a .gov website — generally reliable for official data and documents.
Not appropriate (do not select)
- a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a “history nerd” — generally not reliable unless you can verify his credentials and sources.
- a Wikipedia article — useful as a starting point but not usually acceptable as a final, citable source; use its references instead.
- a .com website with its own online store — likely commercially biased; evaluate carefully and prefer independent sources.
- a website with claims that you can’t verify at another source — not reliable.
- the National Archives — reputable primary-source repository.
- a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty — can be valid if the author is an expert and sources are cited.
- a .org website that was last updated in 2008 — possibly valid depending on the topic and whether the information needs to be current; check authorship and sources.
- a .gov website — generally reliable for official data and documents.
Not appropriate (do not select)
- a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a “history nerd” — generally not reliable unless you can verify his credentials and sources.
- a Wikipedia article — useful as a starting point but not usually acceptable as a final, citable source; use its references instead.
- a .com website with its own online store — likely commercially biased; evaluate carefully and prefer independent sources.
- a website with claims that you can’t verify at another source — not reliable.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.