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.