After searching for Locative Art on the 3 listed websites, each site offered different information. Wikipedia lists a multitude of information of the topic. In of itself Wikipedia offers the history, origins and explanation + definition on the topic taken from various different sources under the interpretation of the person who is writing the description of the term. This would considered to be a tertiary source and would be unreliable. It is further considered to be unreliable because the editors are anonymous (Evaluating Information on the Internet).
Both WorldCat and LEA are similar. They both offer sources that are peer-reviewed and have authors that are experts themselves on the topic. Ignoring any bias at this point, this information (as compared to Wikipedia) would be considered to be more credible because of its non tertiary nature and that the authors themselves are credible. Both sites; however, are subject to professional bias. Since both sites offer information on the term locative art based on their own research and their experience, the articles, books and other sources will be subject to this bias/subjectivity that is somewhat unavoidable.
As a whole, what I learned from this is that credibility on the internet is based on peer-reviews but also appeal to authorities. Researching on the web itself is a difficult task because of businesses being more digitally literate than most would know how to get their material seen (Carterette). It seems that sites that expect you to pay to access their information is also considered to be more credible because of what they offer for sources.
@DTC_AlexTDTran