Question

hich 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

Answer 1

Select:
- the National Archives
- a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
- a .gov website

Why: The National Archives and .gov sites are official primary/authoritative sources. A college professor’s blog about her specialty can be a valid expert source (check credentials and citations).

Notes: Wikipedia and personal weblogs (.com stores or “history nerd” blogs) can be useful starting points for background or finding sources, but they’re generally not accepted as authoritative evidence without corroboration. A site with unverifiable claims or one that’s clearly commercial is not a reliable research source.