Category Archives: Student Blogs

Locative Art

The three sources I used to research locative art were Wikipedia, Leonardo Electronic Almanac, and the WSU WorldCat.  I had never heard of Leonardo Electronic Almanac before, and I expected to find the most information on the subject through Wikipedia.

The Locative Art search on Leonardo Electronic Almanac did not go so well.  I could not find a clear article describing what it was or what how is was being viewed in art culture.  I was a little on the fence using this search site because I had never used it before either, so I didn’t expect much from it.

The Wikipedia was not very helpful because it came up with a search of Locative media so I was confused at first wondering if this was the actual topic I was needing to search.  After reading it, the article somewhat explained what it actually was, but it was not totally clear.  This was due to the fact it was not 100% about the topic.  Wikipedia is always somewhat of a gamble to use, but as long as you double check the sources the information is coming from, it can be very useful for research.

The WorldCat search I did through the University Library I expected to somewhat of a broad selection of search results that involved the locative art or anything slightly to do with it. I ended up only getting three search results though.  This must be because the idea behind locative art must be a new concept so not much is written about it.

Overall, I did not find much on the topic of locative art in general.

@KyleChinn1

Locative Art

@v_kono

I know reliable information information when I see it. The information is presented professionally, and Leonardo Online looked like it was the most reputable for its information. The site itself is described as an almanac. I noticed that the website was also linked to seven different social networking websites. Would someone really go so far to misinform about something that bares low significance to individuals? Another way I saw that this website was credible was by the biographies of the authors. Most of them have Ph.D’s, and that was just a bonus.

Wikipedia was no help at all. I was redirected to a page titled Locative Media. Locative media or Location-Based Media is not the same as Locative Art. Wikipedia is not a very reputable source when it comes to information. Considering the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia, a Google search would be more accurate than doing a wiki search. The descriptions seem legit, and an amateur would most likely fall for it. I, however, do not trust these sort of websites because the authors are not credible. For all we know, high school drop outs can be writing all of that information. The authors are not even listed anywhere. Only the date of when the article was last updated is listed.

WorldCat is on neutral ground. It goes right between the two previously mentioned sources. Most of the articles are reviewed by peers. This is more trustworthy than wikipedia because it is proof read by another individual. Most of the results were from books that were published originally. Also great to know that they were proof read before publication. Authors are listed as well.

Locative Art, Where Art Thou…

Looking at three very different sources to learn about something is very challenging. Of the three sources that we were to look at, Leonardo On-line is the only one that I have never heard of so I spent more time on this site searching what it is about and why I would trust it as a reputable source for information. My expectation was not very high as the layout and cluttered site with very small font was an immediate turn off for me. Being a peer-review journal for art, technology and science gives it a very specific niche for digital art. The articles that I read over didn’t really define what Locative Art is but more how it is used in everyday ‘digital’ space and the potential effects it has on the people it touches.

Wikipedia has always been a double edge sword. A good rule of thumb when dealing with Wikipedia is to check out the cited material and never use it as your only source as some of the pages can read like illogicopedia. Wikipedia gave a good general overview of what Locative Art by combining it with Locative Media is with some examples to give me a good start in my search.

With WorldCat being a University Library I knew I would get a broad spectrum of returns that would have to do with art in public spaces and uses. Though I was surprised to only receive three returns but they covered from Ancient objects to Digital art.

Audra Mann | @WSUVcollegeMom

Evaluating the internet searches is important.

@Heather94720356

When you are doing a search through Google, Wikipedia, World cat, and many others you are not really searching the “web” as a whole. You are searching the chosen engines’ index of the web, which also raises the correct question of ‘how reliable is this particular search engines’ index?’ Than continuing our evaluating processes in our brain. We generally feel more comfortable using popular search engines that more often than not, display the item of information that we are searching on or towards the top. For example when I searched our schools libraries World Cat database, it did not display my desired search on the top it was about the fourth or fifth result down. This would be a database that I may choose not to use due to the inconvenience.

We all have our personal preferences on what we use for general searches, even researches for an extensive project for school. Any of those it is usually smart to familiarize one’s self to the search engines or links that are easiest for you. When finding a document, it is important to determine its relevance to who wrote it? Where did it come from? And when was it written? These are just a few general questions that are important to ask when not only evaluating documents, but also using those tools to narrow down your search to find what it is you were looking for.

Locative art

I searched for “locative art” on Wikipedia, WorldCat, and Leonardo Electronic Almanac. Wikipedia, the “free encyclopedia”, is an online database, which has articles on a variety of topics and usually appears at the top of every Google search. It allows users to update pages to correct misinformation or cite new information. Thus, it is formed from the layers of many people’s opinions. However, it still offers quite a bit of information.
WorldCat is an archive of scientific tomes. The information includes the name of the author, and most of the texts are peer reviewed. Thus they are more trustworthy than Wikipedia articles, though less accessible.
Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA) publishes the work of credible authors. There work is shown for users to read, and is followed up with biographical information. The texts are more accessible than WorldCat, and less edited than Wikipedia, but still contain author bias.
None of them are the perfect database, but all are very helpful.

blog 13

@samai14

We all have done some research before and the most common place we all turn to is the internet. We don’t go to the library to look for books, newspaper, or journals. We often hear people or even ourselves saying “Google it.” What does that even mean? We can search for information online and get so much feedback that we don’t know what is true or not which may be confusing. Kelly and Luther suggest that “When content is abundant, finding the right content becomes the challenge.”

When I was searching for the term “locative art” in Wikipedia it gave me results for “locative media.” It gave a description on what it is and other information that is not useful. Although Wikipedia has references Wikipedia is not a good place to research things. I don’t think it’s credible because it is not a primary source and anyone can write things on Wikipedia. When I searched for “Locative art” in Leonardo almanac, it gave me 27 results back. This site is not credible because the information that is given is from authors that use their nickname or only use their first name. When searching for the term “locative art” in WorldCat it gave me about 606,393 results back. Most of the results were either ebooks or books. This site looks more credible than the other sites because the information source came from books rather than just websites that people make up. Also the authors full names appear.

All these 3 sites are different and I learned that is better to use information form databases rather than websites like Google, databases are more credible, it gives you relevant information and more feedback.

blog 13

 

@Reneejo714

While searching the term “locative art” in Wikipedia, Leonardo Electronic Almanac and the “WorldCat” WSU’s database, I had found that all search engines gave me correct information on the term “locative art”.  I did see that WorldCat and Leonardo Electronic Almanac had given the best definition and creditability on sources.  You were given multiple links to read up on locative art, in different sources. When it came to looking up the term “locative art” in Wikipedia, it was short simple and to the point. Wikipedia’s definition of locative art had less credentials compared to the WorldCat and Leonardo Electric Almanacs search engines did. Wikipedia gives links where locative art is a topic, the WorldCat gives books that are about art and techniques then the Leonardo Electronic Almanac gives links to blogs, and discussion groups on the topic of locative art. I would agree with “Evaluating Information Found on the Internet,” had said, Wikipedia is the first site to usually pop up in your Google search engine, because it’s right there of course majority of people are going to click on that link and use the given information because it’s less work, fast and simple. I believe people and I will most likely continue to use Wikipedia because we want everything at the snap of our fingers. If I had to rate these sites it would be World Cat, than the Leonardo Electronic Almanac and then the Wikipedia, WorldCat first because the references did have weak references, and Wikipedia last because it didn’t expand and had extremely weak references.

Locative Art and Internet Credibility

@starlingpreston

For this assignment I searched “locative art” on Wikipedia, WorldCat, and Leonardo Electronic Almanac. Wikipedia is a website that can be continuously updated by any user with access to the Internet. The information it offers is bias, and the work is based upon multiple author’s opinions. Since the “authorship,” or “biographical information” is not given, the content of that webpage becomes questionable (Evaluating Information on the Internet). Yet, it does offer an actual definition of locative art, and condensed information.

WorldCat offers a multitude of journals, books, scholarly articles, most of which have been peer reviewed or edited. Once the works or pieces are clicked on, WorldCat offers information about the author, along with publication dates, publication cities, and sources linked to that article or book. Furthermore, WorldCat allows its users to filter the material they want, so if they want a more current article, the user can request it. The sources on this site are more credible than Wikipedia because it offers “authorship, publishing information, source, currency, and verifiability” (Evaluating Information on the Internet).

Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA) offers information that was written and published by credible authors. At the end of the peer reviewed journal the user is searching, the site provides in depth information about the author and publisher. While LEA offers “recent work and topics of current relevance”, it is prone to bias (LEA About). The author’s are experts in their respective field, and will have some bias towards their own work.

Where WorldCat and LEA offers journals and books about the topic, Wikipedia offers a distinctive definition with a condensed background.

Search engine credibility

@CailinJohnson

“They found that users tend to look at results ranked higher than one they click on more often than they look at results ranked lower…” (Carterette and Jones p.1) When first searching I thought that the most relevant and credible results would show up at the top of my search results. However that is not what I found with the worldcat site. If I did not already know that the WSUV worldcat site was a library search engine I would have questioned it credibility because only one the results on the first page was relevant to my search topic. Also the only result that was relevant was the 4th result on the page. To me this makes the site seem like it does not have relevant results for my search and is not credible. The Wikipedia website gave a lot of information on the topic and gave quite a few examples of what locative art is. Also the references were published literature instead of websites; Leonardo’s Electronic Almanac was even referenced on Wikipedia. The only thing that makes me question the Wikipedia results is knowing that it is a free site that can be edited by anyone, however if I did not know this I would think that the site gave a credible search result. Leonardo’s Electronic Almanac fits the quote above which states that users look at results ranked higher because the only relevant result on the page was the first result. The other results did not seem relevant. The result that was relevant had a lot of the same information that popped up on Wikipedia. This similarity made each of the sites seem credible.

Blog Post 13

@brandonluc01

In this assignment I was asked to search the term “locative art” in Wikipedia, Leonardo Electronic Almanac, and “World Cat” WSU’s library database. In doing this I found many differences between the search results. Wikipedia had numerous sources at the bottom of the page and summarized them all into one condensed page on the topic “locative art.” I also found that Wikipedia gave a concise definition of the term opposite of the search done on Leonardo’s Electronic Almanac which gave numerous sources on the topic for me to choose and read from. Leonardo’s Electronic Almanac did not summarize or condense the information of the topic “locative art.” When searching “locative art” on the WSU database I found that the search yielded more journals than articles and summaries. All of the journals had accredited sources listed.

After completing these searches I’ve concluded that the WSU database ranks the most reliable search engine, Leonardo’s Almanac second, and Wikipedia third least reliable. I have chosen this order because WSU’s library database and Leonardo’s Almanac does not condense the information. The two sites reveal separate links to the journals and articles written on the topic “locative art.” Wkipedia condensing the information is less reliable because pertinent information could be left out for the sake of saving space on the Wiki page. Also Wikipedia is less reliable because it can be manipulated by those who are not fit to write about the topic or are not esteemed and accredited sources.