Do you think Wikipedia might have research value in terms of shortcuts? If so, how? In terms of research “Shortcuts” I’m sure Wikipedia is full of these. As pointed out in other postings, you are able to see most, if not all, references that are listed when searching for something. So say you are doing research on bears, if you see an interesting fact you could include in a paper, below you would find out where they got that interesting information and be able to “follow the cookie trial” to the point of origin. This is only in some cases, and I would not suggest it. Looking for a shortcut is not always the best way to write a sound research paper. I suggest just sticking to the facts, but if I am not able to find something than maybe Wikipedia might help me get started. It all depends on what you’re researching. What are some ways that you can determine the bias of various groups on the internet? …show more content…
How they write an article or piece of news can be easily determined. For instance, you can easily tell the bias of a group when George W. Bush is brought up. It’s either they agree with him, or tear down every view of his. Same can be said with Obama and how he is viewed in some groups. Looking for alternative points in an article is also a good indicator on how to determine bias views as well. If an author is clearly one sided on an issue, like the George Bush example, there is a good chance they are bias. If they point out weaknesses and strengths in a subject one is also able to determine a viewpoint based on that as well. Looking to see who sponsors a website, or seeing just a limited view on a topic are all indicators of determining