Usefulness and Reliability (1 Viewer)

[Slush Puppy]

I am totally lost on this? first of all, what's the dif between the two??

secondly, how do you distinguish if a text is useful and reliable?

could someone gimme the complete works over this?

thnx =)

 

[SPX]

Its useful if it has relevance, it can give you a conclusion and if it aids you in getting an answer. It is reliable if it isn't biased, it is objective, if it hasn't been edited, propaganda? and if they person that said it has high authority. You have to weigh them against each other.
Now a text can be both or it can be neither. Remember to answer the question determine first if it has relevance and if it aids you then you can draw a conclusion.

 

[Arch-man]

Reliable doesn't have to be objective. To be deemed reliable, it must contain accurate facts. You can write a totally subjective article, but if you can contain accurate facts in it, it can be deemed reliable.

Also, if you have a piece of German propaganda that portrays Jews as fat and rich, that part of it may be unreliable, however, it is reliable as it shows that the Germans produced anti-semitic propaganda.

You may also have to cross-check sources against your
own knowledge. If there is an issue in the source which you think doesn't sound right, then make a point of it in your answer, and try to refer to another source to counter it. If you can't think of another source specifically, but you do know that it's not right, then just refer vaguely.

eg:

"Source C shows that the use fo planes in WWI was vast and effective. This is debateable, as there are other pieces of evidence that show that whilst planes were in use in WWI, they were not widespread and were not very effective. *This is described in Haig's diaries.*"

The stuff in the asterix you only use if you can remember where you saw it.

(Don't quote me on that, I haven't read Haig's diaries and I have no idea whether or not he makes a mention of planes in his diaries, it was used for example purposes only)

 

[Sari]

everything is useful for something - even if its the most blatant piece of propaganda ever written, it's useful as an example of propaganda. See what I mean? usefulness is always there, we got taught its not as much gauging HOW useful something is, but rather what its useful FOR.

 

[farmboywilly]

An important thing to remember is that a source can be both useful and reliable... many think this to be untrue but let me give you an example.

this is a very blatant example but i'll use it anyway...
a source may say that jews were the reason for the 'woes' of the treaty of versailles and that they are the sole cause for the unhappiness that ensued, now we know that this was essentially just a piece of propaganda used by the NSDAP party so therefore it has much bias involved with it, causing a deal of unreliability, HOWEVER, it could be very useful in showing the what SOCIETY WAS FEELING AND HOW SUCH STRONG ANTI-SEMITISM CAME ABOUT...

catch my drift...?

 

[Nightshade]

Look at the q and see what u have to answer first!!!

Generally, and vaguely:

A source is RELIABLE if its free of bias, reputable author, and all that uther crap.

However, a source is USEFUL if it help you to answer the topic in the q.

For example, you might have a source on changing of tactics & technology throughout the course of the war, and it might be the most reliele piece of work there is. However, it is defiately not useful if the question that you're answering is about the role of women on the British homefront!

 

[Kremmi]

Useful -- all sources are useful, because they reflect what people thought/were told ect.. Even propaganda is useful because it shows what people of that time and place were feed, and forced to believe.

Reliable -- The easiest way would be if a source if objective and free of bias. But it doesn't stop there -- a source is reliable even if it has bias in it, as long as the bias/propoganda/subjective view is realised and taken into account when you answer that question.

Say, for example, a piece of Nazi anti-sematic (sp??) propaganda is presented. It is useful because it shows what the nazi regime was telling the German people.

It could also be reliable. Not because Jews were to blame for the deep depression Germany suffered, but, as long as the bias is realised and the sorce is reconised as propoganda. It is then reliable because, while it may not be true, this is what people were told. The Nazi's had alot to gain by telling people that Jews were the root of all evil, and should be exterminated, however, this what they told people, and what many belived.


Basically, all sources are useful, regardless of content. And most sources are reliable, as long as the Bias/Subjective content is realised.

Thats who I answer my source questions anyways...

 

[Manan]

Someone please explain the difference between usefulness and reliability))

Hi,
I know the question sounds simple but every textbook seems to say a different thing. Source analysis isn't exactly my strongpoint, so any clarification would be wooooooonderful!!!!

Thanks

Cheers

 

[Sarah168]

Learn to love the search engine

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=4684

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=1590&

 

[mattchan]

Reliability is looking at all those things like bias, perspectives, nature under which it was produced, type of source, etc.

A Source can be unreliable but still can be useful for whatever the question is asking....Useful is basically, what is it telling you in respect of the question asked.

 

[Manan]

Lovely!

Thanks for that....

 

[MissSavage29]

I am totally lost on this? first of all, what's the dif between the two??

secondly, how do you distinguish if a text is useful and reliable?

could someone gimme the complete works over this?

thnx =)

when u are looking to prove soemthing is reliable you need to take into consideration the following
-author
-origin
-motive of source
-period written
-date source
-content (what is the source saying)
-intended audience
-bias of source

in a nutshell the two (reliability and usefulness) link - and u can't really seperate them - a source is always useful for a certain purpose- ur job is to find out hwo accurate it is... it doesn't sound right when its put link that but its the only way i can think to describe it...

um lets see say u had a photo of nice, clean british trenches and you were told it was taken by a British senior officer and was to be sent back to the homefront -

from your own study you woudl knwo that british trenches were terrible - thus you could infer that due to the position of the author and the audience he was writitng for his intented purpose woudl be to glorify war on the homefront.

from this you would be able to say that the source is not a reliable depiction of british trenches but it is useful in showing how British generals wanted people to view the war front - thus glorify war.

Have a look at some past questions - usually reliability of a source depends on what they are asking you - in the HSC you will get a stimulos question you need to answer - ummm its something like Using Source A and Source B how useful are the soruces in depicted life on the front for soliders? - then you go thorugh ur questiosn show the positive / negative aspects of teh source - make judgement on its reliabilyt and then say what it woudl actually be useful for

i hope that example makes sense to you

 

[MissSavage29]

there is a thread similar to this on the main board - http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=1590

basically - every source is useful for something - it may not be its intended purpose but a historican can infer alot of information from a source

reliability - depends on various factors which u have to determine abotu the source - this includes

• author - who wrote teh source / what was there positon
• audience - who was teh source written for
• motive - why was teh srouce written
• content - what does the source say
• origin - where does the source come from - what was happening during this period

um the example i used on the other board was of a British Trench- if u were given a photo taken by a high officer in the British army of a clean british trench, what was to be sent to a family at home.

Using your own knowledge (knowing that they were horriable conditions) by analysis the source you woudl sya it was not a reliabile depiction of the condition of most british trenches

however - the source woudl be useful to show how british command wanted the war front to be perceieved by the homefront

i hope that helps

 

[kr1s]

Usefulness involves whether it can be utilized for a certain purpose. Every source, no matter how useless it seems still has some sort of use

Reliability involves whether the source can be trusted and this could involve bias/where the source is from.

 

[Manan]

Source Analysis here I come

Thanks so much for that-I'll try and memorise that checklist MissSavage....

I always had the perception that useful was to do with what you could get from the source-what info it was telling you about a specific topic and reliability was whether you could "trust" the info given to you, so to speak.......

Well, its all good now

Cheers

 

[Meldrum]

Omcap - What Is It?

Can someone please tell me what OMCAP stands for, it's in the 2002 response to Question 3 about usefulness and reliability, thanks.

 

[rama_v]

Ill have a stab
Origin Motive Content A?? Purpose

 

[DementedDonkey]

I'd say that's right, and that A=audience, but that's just a guess.

 

[DementedDonkey]

Actually wait no, I reckon it's Origin, Motive, Content, Audience, Perspective... as purpose is similar to motive, so i dont think it'd be there twice.

 

[Meldrum]

Actually wait no, I reckon it's Origin, Motive, Content, Audience, Perspective... as purpose is similar to motive, so i dont think it'd be there twice.

Guh, given that, I don't know how that bizzle got her 90%>.