Politics

CRAAP Test Time!

Politics, Technology, , Leave a comment

CRAAP Evaluation:     http://www.justfacts.com/

Currency             
  • Copyright 2016
  • I could not find any information on when exactly they update information
  • Claims of “latest research” – there were recent study dates but didn’t seem like they were regularly updated
  • Every link I clicked worked
  • The site was started in 1997 and “formalized” in 2007
Relevance          
  • This site is mostly organized by issues, ex: “gun control,” “unions,” “abortion,” etc.
  • They provide a LOT of information and explanation for each topic, excessively so. Each topic feels like a legal document on why you should support their stance on a topic.
  • If you want to find current positions from each potential candidate in 2016 you will be disappointed-if it is there I couldn’t easily find it
  • They also have an App and Initiatives sections that are admittedly more biased and less efficiently checked for truth
Authority            
  • It does list the people in charge
  • The president of the site has a degree in Mechanical Engineering-this personally bothered me because having that degree does not seem relevant to running a site providing political fact information
  • The site intentionally does not disclose who funds it, “private donors,” whose privacy they ensure-questionable
  • The site very prominently displays big name organizations that have cited their information, on every page I visited-I’m not sure what their goal is by doing this. Perhaps to appear more legitimate; compensating for something?
  • They do provide contact information
  • It is a .com site
Accuracy             
  • The state that they are conservative/libertarian and claim to be unbiased in their reporting of facts
  • The language was occasionally emotional but not overly so.
  • Professional appearance
  • Proper grammar
  • Citations of information
  • They lay out “Standards of Credibility” for some of their information and admittedly not others
  • Most of this information is out of my field (I’m not a subject-matter expert)
Purpose              
  • “A resource for independent thinkers”
  • Conservative/libertarians that are reporting unbiased facts -I don’t believe this because their information (“facts”) supports their views
  • They don’t appear to be selling advertising
  • They don’t disclose how, specifically, they are funded so it is hard to tell if they may be supporting particular groups

Conclusion:

The overall feeling I got from the language of their articles was that they were trying hard to sell me on a particular conclusion. I think if you already agree with their views you will find them more credible. I think they are somewhat credible if you take their obvious ideological slant into consideration. You can get a good overview of conservative/libertarian views on particular issues.

 

CRAAP Evaluation:     http://www.factcheck.org/

Currency             
  • Copyright 2016
  • Many promoted articles and links to articles from January to February 2016
  • Current tweets
  • All links I checked worked correctly
  • Established 1993
  • Appears to be updated very regularly
Relevance          
  • Most articles are about the current debates between potential presidential candidates
  • Many articles about specific issues/topics and relevant facts to support claims or to disprove them
  • 2016 election candidates “players guide” and TV ads
  • Archived articles about President Obama, Joe Biden, Healthcare, Climate Change, Immigration, Guns, and Abortion – all recent/current issues
Authority            
  • Annenberg Public Policy Center – of the University of Pennsylvania
  • by Walter Annenberg
  • Funding is specified in detail – through APPC grants, Flora Family Foundation and individual public donations
  • individual donors giving over $1000 are disclosed
  • Contact information is available
Accuracy             
  • Detailed sources and citations are used
  • Professional appearance
  • Correct grammar
  • Most of the information is out of my field (I am not a subject-matter expert)
  • Generally fits with what I know
  • I did not detect an ideological slant
Purpose              
  • Mission is to address public policy at local, state, and federal levels
  • No advertising
  • Don’t appear to be selling anything
  • They answer people’s questions about the statements politicians and news media make to determine what they are based on – providing the original links and quotes to what was said

Conclusion:        

I got a much better vibe from this site. It is extremely organized and very specific to the exact statements that are made and questions asked/answered. I like that they disclose their funding but honestly I wouldn’t necessarily be able to analyze it for issues. It seemed much more interactive. I feel that if I asked a relevant question I would get an answer and links to relevant sources to back it up. I will probably use this if I have political questions in the future.