Source I:
Wieder, Tobin. Screenshot taken 9/11/2015.
Credibility: This tweet comes from the American Scientist Magazine, an accredited scientific journal. The scientist that appears in the tweet, Avner Vengosh, was also one of the authors of the two scholarly sources I evaluated in my last blog post. His input in several scholarly sources and his doctoral credentials show his and this tweet's credibility pertaining to the fracking controversy.
Location: Avner Vengosh and the American Scientist Magazine reside in the US where this debate is centralized so they have access to the most up to date information and studies done on fracking in the US.
Network: The magazine's twitter account is followed by thousands of people who keep up with science news. Avner Vengosh does not have a twitter however the magazine's account follows several other scientists with credentials that vary across all sorts of different fields in science.
Content: The information in this tweet aligns with claims made in other scholarly sources I have encountered. There is also a direct link that details and cites the sources that support the brief claim made in the tweet by Avner Vengosh and the magazine.
Contextual Updates: The account tweets about hundreds of different scientific news pieces, not just ones about fracking.
Age: The magazine has been active on Twitter since 2010 so it is an established account with a solid following base of 15,000 followers.
Reliability: I believe that this source is reliable because it was posted by an accredited, widely established scientific magazine and the information it is based on comes from an accredited chemist and specialist in fracking who has written several other scholarly journals about the topic.
Source II:
Wieder, Tobin. Screenshot on 9/11/2015
Credibility: This tweet comes from a civil engineer who focuses on creating sustainable projects for water conservation as an employee of Innovative Water Solutions. He works for water conservation so he is somewhat credible on this topic of possible water contamination, however he lacks credentials that would make him an accredited figure on the controversy of fracking, like a doctorate degree or a position in an academic research institution.
Location: He lives in Austin, Texas and a lot of fracking occurs in Texas, however I don't believe that he is close to or works on any fracking site.
Network: He doesn't have very many followers so his lack of a substantial online network makes this source seem a little less reliable because he isn't well known in the scientific community or in the field of fracking.
Content: The tweet references a study by the Environmental Protection Agency, so the claim can easily be corroborated with an article on the EPA's specific study and one is, in fact, included. There have also been other sources through other medias, including scholarly articles, that I have seen that have made the same claim about the lack of widespread contamination of drinking water as a result of fracking.
Contextual Updates: This account tweets frequently about water conservation issues like drought and waste water in general, however there aren't many more tweets discussing fracking on the contamination of drinking water.
Age: The account was made in 2009 but most tweets have been made in the last two years, but this is no indicator of a source that would lack credibility.
Reliability: This source is somewhat reliable because it is based on an article published by NPR about a study done by a government association (the EPA). Also, someone who puts importance towards water safety/conservation is not likely one who would falsely tweet about the safety of water after fracking if the study weren't likely valid. The lack of credentials and network, however, takes away from the overall reliability of the source, but I would say that it could generally be considered reliable.
No comments:
Post a Comment