During my search for Locative Art, I encountered a mixed result of information. First I went to Wikipedia and typed in “Locative Art”. What came up was not Locative Art but Locative Media. In the article, it was more about location media such as tracking, nothing really about art. The credbility on Wikipedia could also be off, since ANYONE can go in and change what is true, so not too reliable.
Next I searched in the Leonardo Electric Almanac. With this search, it did not give a direct example or information of Locative Art. It actually didn’t give anything about locative art, however it did give some examples of digital designs or graphic design, but nothing really on Locative Art. It is hard to determine how credible this site is because of it not being so specific in finding what Locative Art. But from what I found, it could be credible, but if there is nothing on the subject, then no.
Then I searched in World Cat from the WSU Library. During this search, it gave more books or articles about ANYTHING really regarding art. So the information was not easily available nor easy to find because there were over 600,000 different articles from just searching “Locative Art”. Eventually a person might be able to find something on Locative Art, but it would have to be very specific. But, World Cat is credible and the reason for that is because it is used by a University and schools only use credible information.
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 searching “locative art” on the three sites I found that each one had very different results. Wikipedia didn’t have a page strictly for locative art, but they did have a page for locative media and then listed locative art as a subcategory for locative media. In the Leonardo Electronic Almanac there are articles or books done on topics related to locative media and when clicked on they give an abstract or the information needed to go find the article. Similarly in WorldCat there are scholarly or peer reviewed articles and books that the school has put together for students and professors at WSU to use. The information on Worldcat seems like it would be more credible then both of the other sites because the information on Wikipedia could be misinformation or disinformation since it is a site that can be edited by anyone and the information on the Leonardo Electronic Almanac could contain some propaganda. I suppose that some of the articles on the WorldCat search could contain propaganda because there are many articles that contain bias. However, after reading “Evaluating Information Found on the Internet,” I can see how easily people just go to a site like Wikipedia because it is the first one that shows up on a Google search. Most people just want information fast pertaining to whatever it is that they are looking up and they don’t bother to take the time to search through several sites to see what is and is not credible.