When I need to know new things, Internet search engines are the tools that I use to answer my questions right away. Today, there are so many search website such as Wikipedia, WorldCat as the library database and Google. The only remaining thing that I have to concern is about the credibility and reliability of this new information. That’s exactly how we have evaluating standards nowadays. For the Wikipedia, it gives me quick views of the information because all the data follow the same pattern; the definitions of the term of information always go on the top. That way, you can directly get the idea without reading the rest of the source. However, Wikipedia doesn’t have any credibility for academic writing assignment and this is the huge difference between Wikipedia and the library database. For the WorldCat, there are lots reliabilities and it is pretty to get citation from this source. Besides, I have to read the entire article to get the idea of the information, plus, some articles doesn’t seems to be accurate for what I look for even though their key words are matched. Additionally, the difference between WorldCat and Leonardo Electronic Almanac is the image that have been attached to each article on Leonardo website. With this advantage, researchers easily recognize how close their key words with the found related articles without reading them; it is a part of assisting method for the convenience of the researchers. In my opinion, Leonardo website has more reliabilities and credibility than Wikipedia; however, some articles will be hard to cite for academic writing assignments.
Wikipedia can be useful if you just want some general information on a subject. Wikipedia said that “locative art was a subcategory of interactive art and it explored the relationships between the real world and the virtual.” Instead of talking about locative art, it mostly talked about locative media. I realized that by reading the general information on wikipedia, it helped me get a better idea of what to be looking for in the more credible sites. Wikipedia isn’t a credible source because you don’t know who is writing it, but it’s still a good start.
In the Leonardo Electronic Almanac, it gave a bunch of articles to pick. It didn’t specifically talk about locative art, but instead, ideas related to it. The first article talks about a study about interactive art and that it “can shift human’s perspective of space, allowing them to have social experiences and feel locally connected and anchored.” These articles may be useful if someone were to write an essay to go along with a thesis statement. This article could show evidence of that and then you could go on with showing examples.
On WorldCat, it showed art books. I know that these are credible because as said in the “Evaluating information on the internet” paper, the research academic library shows resources that have been evaluated by scholars. But still, by searching wikipedia first, it helped me know which book I should be looking at. Probably “Mobile Interface Theory” as opposed to “A companion of Asian art and literature.”
When I searched Wikipedia for locative Art, the website took me to the locative media page. What Wikipedia is, is basically an online super dictionary. Most of the info that came up on the locative media page was informational. However, one can’t always trust wikipedia to be correct when presenting their information. Wikipedia is an open book, anyone can be an author and change the information on any given page. This is why it can be unreliable. There is no way of knowing how credible the author is.
The next search I did for locative art was on the Leonardo Electronic Almanac. This site is very different from Wikipedia. It is basically a site similar to the sites that many colleges use for research. When I typed locative art into the search box, the site pulled up many different abstracts, collections of abstracts, and books on the subject. While this site definitely seems like a much more reliable source for information, it also causes me to pause. The site looks too polished to be objective. Where did the money come from to make the site look so good? Are there certain authors or universities that are paying to get a better search placement?
When I searched for locative art on WorldCat the site pulled up many different books on art. while the other sites pulled up pieces that had to do with electronic art, WorldCat pulled up books on modernism and renaissance art. Only showing me something that had to do with electronic art about halfway down the page. I feel las though I can trust this site because it is being utilized by a well known university.