Analyzing the video using the CRAAP test, it makes me notice that additional time and information may be needed by the evaluator in order to be able to assess accurately. To evaluate the author’s credentials, for instance, one had to continue to explore the “Reveal” account. Reveal provides the latest investigations from The Center for Investigative Reporting: “We engage and empower the public through investigative journalism and groundbreaking storytelling.” Sometimes the resources alone don’t contain all of the information necessary to evaluate the source.
I would say yes to current, yes to relevant, yes to authors, unknown to accuracy (I’m assuming the CIR would be accurate, but I bet the companies mentioned would have a different view). The purpose of the video appears to be balanced, but in fact there is an implicit and subtle agenda: there are increasingly negative connotations about the amount of data being collected, the tracking partnerships, and lack of control a person has over the picture the data creates. In fact, the happy music and animations understate (but make more ominous) the concern the video wants to instil in viewers about the lack of privacy we ultimately have by participating in consumer culture and using marketing tools.
For the Learning to Learn (Fanshawe) resource:
- Currency – published recently, and in date
- Relevance – balance of detail sophistication
- Authors – author credentials show expertise, both initial authors and adaptors
- Accuracy – source matches understanding, bibliography available
- Purpose – purpose is stated clearly and perspective is balanced