1 / 16

Annotations

Annotations. Your evaluation of a source NOT A SUMMARY! Follow guidelines in GCC’s “How to Write an Annotation for a Source”. Skim the article. A quick read to determine whether a more in-depth reading is warranted.

duc
Download Presentation

Annotations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Annotations • Your evaluation of a source • NOT A SUMMARY! • Follow guidelines in GCC’s “How to Write an Annotation for a Source”

  2. Skim the article A quick read to determine whether a more in-depth reading is warranted. Borland, John. “See Who’s Editing Wikipedia.” Wired.com 14 Aug. 2007.

  3. How to skim?Read - • Abstract, if available • First paragraph or chapter – • Find author’s key propositions • Titles, headings, subheadings • Last paragraph or chapter – • Conclusion = What is the author’s bottom line • First sentence of each paragraph • Bold, italicized, underlined, ALL CAPS • Graphs, tables, charts, diagrams, captions

  4. Is this a good annotation? Borland, John. “See Who’s Editing Wikipedia: Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign.” Wired 14 Aug. 2007. 1 Oct. 2007 <http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker>. The author of the article, “See Who’s Editing Wikipedia: Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign” is John Borland. John is a freelance writer who lives and works in Berlin and writes articles about politics, science, technology and popular culture. He has written for more than seven years for CNET’s News.com and also for Wired and Scientific American online. He has won the Society of American Business Editors and Writers’ Best in Business award. The article is meant to inform the public about these changes being made to content by people who have a personal interest in what is on Wikipedia, but Borland also seems to be critical of the people and organizations making the changes, because he suggests they are doing so for less than reputable reasons. This is the only article I found discussing specific examples of how the Wikipedia Scanner can be used to find out who is manipulating the truth and influencing Wikipedia users.

  5. How about this one? Borland, John. “See Who’s Editing Wikipedia: Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign.” Wired 14 Aug. 2007. 1 Oct. 2007. John Borland is an award winning journalist who writes regularly on technology for Wired, Scientific American Online, etc. The article itself focuses specifically on investigating who the people are who are editing Wikipedia articles. The article also discusses the Wikipedia Scanner, created by Cal Tech graduate student Virgil Griffith. The Scanner allows people to see who is editing various Wikipedia entries by connecting the edits to the internet addresses from which they come. Borland explains how the scanner works in layperson’s terms and gives examples of how editing has been done. Politicians have changed Wikipedia articles to make themselves look better and big organizations, like Wal-Mart have done the same. This is the only article I found discussing specific examples of how the Wikipedia Scanner can be used to find out who is manipulating the truth and influencing Wikipedia users. This article will help support my point that one cannot simply trust that all the information in Wikipedia is accurate and factual.

  6. And this one? Borland, John. “See Who’s Editing Wikipedia.” Wired 14 Aug. 2007. Web. 1 Oct. 2007. John Borland is a regular contributor to Wired.com and he often writes for the Science and Techbiz sections of this online magazine. This article is written for the general adult population who is interested in internet technology issues. The article itself focuses specifically on investigating who the people are who are editing Wikipedia articles using the Wikipedia Scanner, created by Cal Tech graduate student Virgil Griffith. The Scanner allows people to see who is editing various Wikipedia entries by connecting the edits to the internet addresses from which they come. Borland does not state any bias in his writing, but he says not all people making changes are honest about what they’re changing. This is the only article I found discussing how the Wikipedia Scanner finds out who is manipulating the truth and influencing Wikipedia users. It will help support my point that one cannot trust that all the information in Wikipedia is accurate and factual.

  7. Do either of these state bias? …the tuneless noise that is hip-hop music. …the vibrant sound that is hip-hop music. Neither ‘states’ bias toward or against hip-hop but do you know which author likes hip-hop music?

  8. Does this passage show any bias? Vitamin A is an important nutrient and is necessary for healthy vision. People can develop night blindness if they do not get enough of it. Carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A and should be part of your daily diet. But what if you found it that it came from a brochure put out by the American Carrot Association? … and that sweet potatoes have more Vitamin A than carrots?

  9. Questions to ask re: bias • Both sides of the issue presented? • Support by evidence or examples? • Use of generalizations? • ‘everyone knows”, “All” sensible people. • Use stereotypes? • emotional women, pushy New Yorkers. • Will the writer benefit if I believe what is told to me?

  10. Identify author’s point of view • What topic gets the most attention? • What is repeated? What is emphasized? • Identify the writer’s purpose - • the message you remember after you finish reading

  11. Look for positive descriptors

  12. Or negative descriptors

  13. What is the point of view here? A recent article in the Daily Bulletin regarding medical marijuana failed to mention the fallacies and problems associated with what has become a personal mission and profession for a limited few to blatantly distort the truth in an attempt to lead readers to believe that smoked marijuana is medicine. Sabet, Kevin. Inland Daily Bulletin.23 July 2008

  14. Or here? One in three adult Americans admits to having tried marijuana…Yet the government still spends billions of dollars trying to save them from it… Several European countries have tired of this crusade. Will America follow? Economist. 28 Sep. 2002:58

  15. What about here? A dozen states have adopted legislation in recent years allowing patients with certain illnesses to legally use marijuana as a medicine – measure that clearly conflict with federal anti-marijuana laws. Meanwhile, some studies show that marijuana is less addictive than caffeine, and legalization proponents argue that it should therefore be available to adults for personal use. The government and other critics continue to insist that marijuana should remain illegal because it is not an effective medicine and is both dangerous in its own right and as ‘gateway’ drug to cocaine and other more addictive and harmful drugs. Marshall, Patrick. “Marijuana Laws.” CQ Researcher Online. 15.6 (2005):125.

  16. Remember: every source has a potential for bias • Identify and recognize the point of view • Take it into account when evaluating your source • Take everything with a grain of salt

More Related