@ObergJustin
After searching the term “locative art” I discovered there were many differences between the different search sites. Each search site was different in its credibility and usefulness. Searching the term locative art on Wikipedia gave me a very quick, down and dirty definition of what locative media is in general. Now where Wikipedia is the least credible of the sources because it can be easily edited by anyone, it does seem to be a good launching off point because the page gives you a general definition that you can wrap your mind around and provides many links to more reputable sources on the subject. Searching the Leonardo Electronic Almanac was interesting. The LEA seems credible since it is the collaborative effort of many universities including MIT and centers around art, science and technology. However, the information it provides was a little cluttered for my taste and was definitely not as easy to find as on Wikipedia. It took me awhile to find an article dealing specifically with locative art and even longer to find a definition on the term. The same was with World Cat, which even though it is a trusted credible source of articles run by WSU, it took significantly longer to find a relevant article and a definition specifically about locative art. This trade off of ease of access and credibility seems to be the norm online. If you want to find an article that is both useful and credible, be prepared to spend time digging through trusted yet non-optimized databases of articles.