|
|
Review of the Greening of the Anti Immigrant Agenda
I found this piece to be interesting and a fairly provocative argument.
It does not however meet the needs of an in depth research piece.
If an
individual was looking for helpful points of view and a direction to
be taken with his/her research you could find this site helpful.
However, I would
not recommend this site as a source for an article or essay on this
topic.
I. Accuracy
Is the information reliable and error-free?
Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?
The site is written by a woman working towards immigrant rights.
She takes a pro immigrant stand so there is likely some bias in her work.
There
are few facts and figures but rather a series of opinions and quotes.
Short of misrepresenting the quotes there is little room for error.
II. Authority
Is there an author? Is the page signed?
Is the author qualified? An expert?
Who is the sponsor?
Is the sponsor of the page reputable? How reputable?
Is there a link to information about the author or the sponsor?
If the page includes neither a signature nor indicates a sponsor, is
there any other way to determine its origin?
There is an author clearly affiliated with a pro immigrant organization.
She signs her work and makes it clear what her position is. Her expertise
is
derived from an association with the NNIRR (The National Network for
Immigrant and Refugee Rights). There is no link to the NNIRR site
(http://www.nnirr.org/)… Their site is professional looking and appears
to be trustworthy but the content is clearly biased.
III. Objectivity
Does the information show a minimum of bias?
Is the page designed to sway opinion?
Is there any advertising on the page?
The paper is clearly biased and stresses the NNIRR 's goals. The
goal of this paper attempts to sway opinion against those would otherwise
support
immigration controls. There are no links or advertising on the
page … It appears as a free standing written work.
IV. Currency
Is the page dated?
If so, when was the last update?
How current are the links? Have some expired or moved?
The page was created in the spring of 1998, this can be determined using
the site address. There are no direct indications of date … there
are no
links to be considered out of date.
V. Coverage
What topics are covered?
What does this page offer that is not found elsewhere?
What is its intrinsic value?
How in-depth is the material?
The paper covers most information generally considered to be public
opinion. Very little hard data is supplied. The page offers
fairly interesting
points about the topic. The writer is clear in her bias and the
paper is strictly an argument. The value associated with the paper
can be found in the
argument itself. The paper is not bogged down by a series of
facts and figures. Any in depth research into this issue will require
more research.