2,855
edits
Referencing: Difference between revisions
m
→Critical Appraisal
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Historically information was scarce, now it is abundant. We used to be walking the desert desperate for information, now we have so much we don't know what to trust. Wikipedia has tried to combat this issue, by listing which sources are most reliable and excluding specific those which prefer clicks over fact:'''[[File:News hierarchy.jpg|alt=News hierarchy|center|960x960px|'''Figure 1'''. Wikipedia's news reliability hierarchy]] | '''Historically information was scarce, now it is abundant. We used to be walking the desert desperate for information, now we have so much we don't know what to trust. Wikipedia has tried to combat this issue, by listing which sources are most reliable and excluding specific those which prefer clicks over fact:'''[[File:News hierarchy.jpg|alt=News hierarchy|center|960x960px|'''Figure 1'''. Wikipedia's news reliability hierarchy]] | ||
[[File:Corporate owners-media.png|alt=Oligo|thumb|'''Figure 2'''. Oligopolies of media.]] | [[File:Corporate owners-media.png|alt=Oligo|thumb|'''Figure 2'''. Oligopolies of media.]] | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
== Critical Appraisal == | == Critical Appraisal == | ||
Primarily, the information we consume should be | [[File:Hierarchy of Sciences.png|alt=Hierarchy of Sciences|thumb|'''Figure 3'''. Hierarchy of Sciences]] | ||
Primarily, the information we consume should be unbiased and as factual as possible ('''Figure 3'''). The closest and most abundant source of this are scientific journal articles. Articles go through an approval process, the editor receives an article then sends it out to other scientists, who provide feedback and recommend whether the paper should be published. This practice only became a requirement by most journals in the 1970s and ’80s and reduces poor science by: | |||
* reducing information overload by eliminating irrelevant or weak studies. | * reducing information overload by eliminating irrelevant or weak studies. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* assessing the validity of the study. | * assessing the validity of the study. | ||
* assessing the usefulness and clinical applicability of the study. | * assessing the usefulness and clinical applicability of the study. | ||
This is illustrated in '''Figure | [[File:Weighting hierarchy.png|alt=Weighting hierarchy|thumb|'''Figure 4:''' Scientific weighting hierarchy.]] | ||
This is illustrated in '''Figure 4''' and is the key filtering technique that Burnzero uses to write articles. In fact on every page, at the bottom is a section named '''Reference''', by clicking on the link next to the individual referenced article ([1], [2], [3] etc) you will be taken to an abstract or full article which is only featured if it fits within the higher levels of this hierarchy. Therefore, no news sources are used, only verifiable scientific papers, the intention of this is to bring us closer to fact than fiction. | |||