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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.