Trust is earned not given

A few weeks ago in class, we talked about how to evaluate sources to see what is more trustworthy than others. This activity came in handy as i used what we learned that day as I evaluated sources for my annotated bibliographies. The instructor highlighted how the context that the source is in is fundamental to readers determining how much trust they out into that source. In the first question, I chose source two over source one under the circumstances

Handout given in class
Photo taken by Sefay Edwards

that a historian would have better knowledge about the topic than a director of  the Hollywood film. The second question was a bit more difficult to discern which one I trust more but i chose source one because I think a former slave would disclose more information to a young black man due to familiarity along with other social factors over an employee from the government. Question  three was rather easy for me since a map is constant compared to the memories of people which change or fade over time. The map is obviously the best choice.  After a bit of thought for question four, I chose source two over source one due to how the times changed over the years of each respective source. Source one had more bias than source two and when choosing which one to trust, most of the time I want the

Other side of handout
Photo taken by Sefay Edwards

one that is impartial on the topic. I found question five to be the most difficult. They seemed to be equal. Both are from the same time period and are coming from respective individuals within the military. After asking for some help, the instructor cited that the key phrase was “sworn testimony”. Those words imply that the person is telling the truth since they are under oath while the other may contain bias since he just touring and is not bound to tell the truth. Question six was another easy one for me. The newspaper account from the time the battle occurred is easily more trustworthy than a textbook from 1985  since the paper is a primary source while the book is secondary. All researchers know that if you can use a primary source over a secondary source, you use it. The thought process behind solving these was key in me picking and choosing which sources I chose for my annotated bibliography.

Teamwork to complete an annotated bibliography

Page, M., Hurley, H., Collins, B., Glover, J. B., Bryant, R., Clark, E., Davis, M., Gue, R., Melton, S. V. H., Miller, B., Pierce, M. L., Slemons, M., Varner, J., Wharton, R.(2015). Digital Atlanta: A collaborative approach to remapping Atlanta’s past. 2015 Digital Heritage.

Authors Page, M.C, Hurley, J.H., Collins, B., Glover, J.B., Bryant, R., Clark, E., Davis, M., Gue, R., Van Horn Melton, S.,  Miller, B.,  Pierce, M.L., Slemons, M., Varner, J. and Wharton. R. argue that a successful, interdisciplinary collaboration is possible to yield advances in digital historiography. The article provides examples of technology that is used by students along with historical context to help bring about about an innovative approach of remapping Atlanta’s past. The main goal of the “Digital Atlanta” article is about Georgia State and Emory Universities combined efforts throughout digital projects to address Atlanta’s archaeological built environments and past achievements through digital databases such as; geo-databases, spatial history tools and digital map collections. The target audience of this article are those to work and inhabit the city of Atlanta. This is known from the consistent use of the pronoun, “we”. This implies that the authors are communicating as a whole/community. City planners, historiographers, archaeologists, urban geographers, people in CIS professions, and students who study government, geology/geography, history, information systems, or modeling may find this work useful because this article collaborates varied and specific skills from numerous professions on the history of Atlanta along with the process of a digital remapping of the city. This cross section of skills provides reference for students and professionals as to how their abilities continue to contribute to a greater understanding of history and science.

Learning by example

In class we looked at an example of what would be a good built environment description would look like. The three that we looked at each had individual characteristics that separate themselves from the others.

answers about varsity restaurant.

The first used pictures to help portray the the colors that were inside the restaurant. The author used descriptive language as well to go along with the pictures. When alone either one is good but when together, they are great.

The second had a sound bit that was a recording of the daily sound one might hear if they were to visit the varsity restaurant. This gives an element that a reader has a sort of intangible to, kind of placing the reader in the middle of the restaurant.

The last was a personal outlook on the restaurant as a whole. The author ties in what was witnessed in the first two post and adds her own personal thoughts on how she feels about the restaurant. When I read the last post, I could reference the other two as to see why the author feels the way she does about the restaurant.

What I think i know about english so far

archive, domain, website, multimodality, objective, subjective, audience, details, reading, environment, rhetorical awareness, digital identity, credibility, blog, digital literacy, metadata, drafts, posts, thick description, reading response, attribution, annotation, summary