Secondary Sources

Monday September 24, 2012

     Today we were told to bring in a secondary source that relates to our topic.  If we did not bring in a source, we would have been forced to sing "Call Me Maybe."  Unfortunately, our class is always on top of their game and no one ended up singing.  At the beginning of class we started talking about internet sources.  Using the internet as a source was a new thing in the lat 1990s.  These sources were mostly credible because they were peer reviewed, meaning they went through an extensive routine of being changed, formatted, etc.  First, the person must write an article and do their citations.  Then the author must send it to a magazine, newspaper, journal, etc.  These people would usually give the paper/article to an editor to make sure it is even worth their time messing with.  Then from there, the editor would give the article/paper to 2-3 experts in the field that the paper is about.  These experts would check the facts, offer further insight, and offer changes.  The paper would have to go back to the author for revision, then eventually back to the editor.  This whole process can take anywhere from two to four years!  Because this process took so long there were not many secondary sources on the internet.  However!  Back in 2005/2006 a new innovation came to the internet!  It is called Youtube.com!  Anyone can make videos or powerpoints and post them on the internet!  Some things on youtube are quite credible, while others are just a laugh.  It seems like youtube has been around forever!  Anyway, youtube made it possible for people to imbed clips of film or movies into their online journals and articles.  These clips can make a paper much more exciting and give the reader a break.
     We also talked about how to figure out if a secondary online source is credible.  When one is looking at a website they must keep in mind:
-Author: are they credible?  what are their connections to the topic?
-Audience: who is this text written for?
-Publisher:  is it a academic or popular press?  what other things have they published?
-Historical Argument: what's the main topic/argument that the author is trying to make?  (this is usually
         found in the preface, introduction, or conclusion, but one should not have to hunt for it!)
-Author's point-of-view:  what stance are they taking on the topic?  are there any biases?  (usually a person
        has to read a little bit into the text to get a sense of the point-of-view)
-Author's Sources:  it is important to check an author's sources to see where they got their information
       from!  if the source has several footnotes/end notes and a long bibliography it means that the author
      did their research and are well-rounded and informed on the topic)

     A person must/should check all of these criteria when deciding to use a secondary source.  This check list makes sure that the source is credible and that the author has experience/information about the topic.

     We actually did an activity with our "Doing History" book today as well.  This activity helped me to figure out if my source was credible and worth using in my paper.  These questions asked us to look at our source by asking questions such as:
-What is the author's background?
-Who published the monograph?
-What is the author's point of view?
-What is the historical argument?
-What primary sources are used in the monograph?
 ...and more questions like that.

My book was called "The Tree Army" and was about the different CCC groups throughout the United States during the Great Depression.  It actually had more pictures than it had writing because it was a pictorial.  This book seems very credible though because there were not only primary sources in the form of pictures, but there were stories and interviews from people who worked for the CCC.  Wednesday we are supposed to bring a primary source to class.  I think I will be bringing an article from the Chicago Tribune if I don't find another source from now until then.