Evaluation of General Sources

I am excruciatingly excited to start my extensive research into the supposed arsenic-utilizing GFAJ-1 extremophile bacterium controversy. The premise of the controversy post-mortem is highlighted in this blog post from Discovery Magazine and in this article from USA Today.

URLs?

The URLs of the sources are as follows:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria-a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/#.Vq10hFIfXu0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/

Both URLs end in ".com", which means that the site is used by a business or a commercial enterprise. ".edu" means the domain is owned by an educational facility, ".org" is for non-commercial uses, ".gov" is governmentally owned, ".biz" by businesses, ".name" is used by individuals, ".info" are informational sites, and ".net" refers to networks.

In general, it is difficult to base the credibility of a source solely on its use of domains, but it is common for .org, .com, .edu and .info to be more credible than privately run sites.

Authors?

The author of the Discovery Magazine blog post is Ed Yong. By searching his name in Google, I was able to find that he is an award-winning science author with a myriad of impressive writing accomplishments.

The author of the USA Today article is Dan Vergano. I was able to find out about his educational and teaching histories through Google search.

Last Updated?

On Discovery Magazine, there is no "last updated" timestamp. Because of this, it is safe to assume that the information is not outdated from the time that it was posted.

The source contains many, many hyperlinks to outside sources including: related articles, the original publication, other blogs and posters discussing the topic, and many links to the authors and researchers involved in the study responding to the backlash. All of the links are working.

On the USA Today site, there is both the original posted date and the last updated date. Because of this, readers can be certain that the information is not outdated.

There are less links on this site than the first, but there are enough to provide readers with the necessary information. The links send us to similar articles, websites of institutions involved, and even a Youtube video. The links are all working; however, the Youtube video can no longer be played.

Purpose?

Both texts are trying to accomplish the same thing: to inform readers about the controversy revolved around the GFAJ-1 bacterium.

The first text utilizes a detailed timeline, links, and insider information to inform readers in the most holistic way possible. The post is largely informational, but the facts are presented in a manner that encourages readers to believe the most recent information.

The second text also serves to inform readers about the controversy. There is some bias in the article towards the new information, similarly to the blog post.

Graphics?

There are only two graphics in the Discovery Magazine blog post; one image of the geographical location of the bacterium, and a screenshot of a Twitter post. In my opinion, the graphics used are semi-irrelevant to the controversy as a whole and therefore do not serve a purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing.

USA Today's publication includes a time-lapsed video of the bacterium, an image of their location, and an image of the bacteria under a microscope. This source better utilizes their graphics, as they provide readers with relevant information not otherwise contained in the article.

Position on Subject?

Both sources understandably display moderate bias towards the newest released information. It appears that no one profits if readers believe the information portrayed, as they are disputing a scientific study with scientific reasoning and facts. It is extremely easy to verify the information in these sources with other sources.

Links?

As previously mentioned, both sources contain links to other, related sources. The links take us to credible sources, such as other online science magazines or other publications on the study.