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:
-
The National Archives - Valid source. This is a credible official repository of historical documents and records.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A .gov website - Valid source. Government websites are considered reliable sources of information.
-
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 answer