Question
Which of the following might be considered a valid source for online research? Select all that apply.
the National Archives
• a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd"
• a Wikipedia article
• a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
a . org website that was last updated in 2008
a. com website with its own online store
a gov website
a website with claims that you can't verify at another source
the National Archives
• a weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd"
• a Wikipedia article
• a weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
a . org website that was last updated in 2008
a. com website with its own online store
a gov website
a website with claims that you can't verify at another source
Answers
There are no human answers yet.
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
When assessing valid sources for online research, it's important to consider the credibility, reliability, and authority of the information provided. Here are the evaluations of the sources you listed:
1. **The National Archives** - **Valid source**. This is a credible official repository of historical documents and records.
2. **A weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd"** - **Not necessarily a valid source**. While the individual may have expertise or passion, without further credentials or citations, it's generally not considered authoritative.
3. **A Wikipedia article** - **Not a primary source but can be a starting point**. Wikipedia can provide useful overviews and references to legitimate sources, but it should not be relied upon as a sole source due to its open-edit nature.
4. **A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty** - **Valid source**. If the professor has expertise in the relevant area and provides credible information, this can be a useful source.
5. **A .org website that was last updated in 2008** - **Potentially valid but questionable**. The validity also depends on the organization and the context of the content. However, a long time since the last update can be a concern, especially in rapidly changing fields.
6. **A .com website with its own online store** - **Not necessarily valid**. Commercial websites may have biased or promotional content, so they should be approached with caution.
7. **A .gov website** - **Valid source**. Government websites are considered reliable sources of information.
8. **A website with claims that you can't verify at another source** - **Not a valid source**. If claims cannot be verified by reputable sources, they should not be treated as credible.
**In summary, the valid sources are:**
- The National Archives
- A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
- A .gov website
1. **The National Archives** - **Valid source**. This is a credible official repository of historical documents and records.
2. **A weblog of a guy who describes himself as a "history nerd"** - **Not necessarily a valid source**. While the individual may have expertise or passion, without further credentials or citations, it's generally not considered authoritative.
3. **A Wikipedia article** - **Not a primary source but can be a starting point**. Wikipedia can provide useful overviews and references to legitimate sources, but it should not be relied upon as a sole source due to its open-edit nature.
4. **A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty** - **Valid source**. If the professor has expertise in the relevant area and provides credible information, this can be a useful source.
5. **A .org website that was last updated in 2008** - **Potentially valid but questionable**. The validity also depends on the organization and the context of the content. However, a long time since the last update can be a concern, especially in rapidly changing fields.
6. **A .com website with its own online store** - **Not necessarily valid**. Commercial websites may have biased or promotional content, so they should be approached with caution.
7. **A .gov website** - **Valid source**. Government websites are considered reliable sources of information.
8. **A website with claims that you can't verify at another source** - **Not a valid source**. If claims cannot be verified by reputable sources, they should not be treated as credible.
**In summary, the valid sources are:**
- The National Archives
- A weblog of a college history professor about her area of specialty
- A .gov website
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.