




I found the research for the Valentine’s Day Challenge to be generally easy. Wikipedia and the History Channel’s website were the two sources I used proved to be informative and agreed with most of the information presented as fact. One issue I did encounter was with the History Channel's website, the information was very basic and unlike Wikipedia the site did not provide a means to link with important terms and concepts.
From the readings for this week I approached the assignment with a degree of mistrust of the free websites. After reading through the articles from both of the sites I found the facts did match up with several stories I have heard over the years of St. Valentine’s Day origins. I chose these sites, based on a very technical search using Google searching “history of Valentine’s Day”. The History Channel and Wikipedia were the both one of the top returns. Once I selected both I tabbed between the pages to compare and contrast them.
Wikipedia provided the means to dig deeper into the Lupercalia Festival origins by clicking on the hyper link. I was able to get a more specific explanation of the festival. The History Channel site was simple a text page with no hype links of terms. Though for what I was basing the assignment on the History Channel page proved to be more helpful with linking the Lupercalia Festival to St. Valentine’s Day.
The challenge was interesting and has made me more aware of the potential downfalls of open edit sites. Sites such as Wikipedia and the History channel are good for a basis of research but should not comprise the majority of ones citations. All the “facts” should be double checked with online sites were peer reviews are the norm and that the individuals who present the research are traceable. Though the e-democratic ideal that is foundation of the Wiki movement is a good idea, unregulated information presented as facts with no tests is as dangerous in the virtual world as in the real one.
I have chosen to monitor the
The audience of the Global Post is the general public who are interested in have a more global view of the how an event is reported.
The blog is informative with links to other sites and stories globally.
Is it easy to follow?
The site is easy to follow with clearly marked main tabs and no end links.
It is updated frequently?
In the introduction to the site the creators state that twice weekly, at least, the sites main discussion topics will be updated. In the week I have been looking at the site the main topic has not changed.
Post Global is part of a larger brand, washingtonpost.com.
Is it intended to push a particular point or agenda?
In the “About Post Global” the agenda is:
“an experiment in global, collaborative journalism, a running discussion of important issues among dozens of the world's best-known editors and writers. It aims to create a truly global dialogue, drawing on independent journalists in the countries where news is happening -- from
From my almost daily checks of the Post Global blog this does seem to be the case. The blog does offer view points from around the globe.
Does it use picture?
The blog does have picture but they are not the focus of the blog. Like with most other news sites the pictures are secondary to the written text.
What kind of websites does it link to?
The main links are to other news sites such as
World Politic Review: www.worldpoliticsreview.com
Foreign Policy: www.blog.foreignpolicy.com
Is it well written?