Week 3 Assignment: Background Searching on the Web

Part One: Background Information from a Web Search

1. What is your research topic? This should be a general area of interest at this point. It should NOT be a research question yet.

I would focus on Solar Energy, given that I am currently taking a renewable energy course.

2. Select an unfamiliar Search Engine or Metasearch Engine from this list (that was also linked in the lesson)  and run a search for your topic. DO NOT use Google or Wikipedia for this part of the assignment!

a. Tell me which search engine or metasearch engine you used.

For this assignment, I used DuckDuckGo

b. What new ideas or information did you find about the topic?

I found out that the sun is compared to a fusion reactor--or even that fusion reactors are just little copies of the sun. The amount of energy that the sun provides in one minute is enough to power the entire world's energy needs for an entire year.

c. What are some subtopics you read about in your search?

Photovoltaic power, PV industry, clean energy, solar grid, smart grid, crystalline silicon.

d. What possible research questions came up while you were reading?

One would be "how much would it cost to install enough solar panels to actually power the world?" or another good one is: "what is the efficiency of energy storage from PV solar cells? Perhaps a question like "What locations are best for solar cells to function best (and even geographically, which locations are best)?"

e. List words that might be used for future searches. Be sure to include and label at least one DISTINCTIVE term, one BROAD term, one NARROW term and one RELATED term.

Photovoltaic Cell Energy - Distinctive

Solar Energy - Broad

Crystalline Silicon Solar Cell - Narrow

Renewable Energy - Related

Part Two: Evaluating a Website

1. Search the web, select one website that relates to your topic, and give me the URL.

https://energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/renewable-energy/solar

2. Identify the website's domain, including the suffix (for example, .org or .net). What does that tell you about the website?

This website's domain is a .gov website, which tells me that the information being presented is government authenticated--so it's a pretty good place to start for research.

3. Authority — Scan the page for:

·       Information about the sponsors and/or authors of the page. Is there an “about us” link?

·       Are there any author names, either individual or organizational?

·       What credentials can you find for the author and/or organization? (You may need to search outside of the website.)

      The department of energy created a specific solar energy portion on the DOE website, so that users could find out more about alternative forms of energy. Clicking on "Top 6 Things You Didn't Know About Solar Energy" and the author for the piece is Erin R. Pierce, who was the former Digital Communications Specialist in the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Energy. The credentials were stated right along with her name, and more information is found on the DOE website.

4. Currency

·       Can you tell if the page has been updated? Is there a “date last updated” or copyright date?

·       Do you consider this page sufficiently current for the topic you are researching?

      The page looks to be updated on a regular basis. Interestingly enough, specific dates as to when an article is posted are not very clear. Given that this is a government website, I could assume that it is very current, but I was just a little surprised at the lack of dates.

5. Accuracy

·       Does the page present accurate information? Are information sources documented with footnotes or links? Do the links or citations support the claims made on the page?

       If you scroll down to the bottom of the website there is actually an entire section called "Department of Energy Information Quality Guidelines" where they specifically address that anything that is posted to their website has to go through a strategic and vigorous process for quality assurance. Taking a look at the "Photovoltaics" section, you can see that the article references the National Center for Photovoltaics and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Looking at the NCPV and NREL, the information used is accurate and pertains to the article.

6. Purpose:

·       Why was the page put on the web? Is the purpose to sell something or convince you of a particular point of view? If they are making an argument, do they address conflicting opinions? What biases can you identify?

      The purpose of this page is to completely inform citizens of the united states in regards to what is happening in the advancement of solar energy (how and where systems can be built, costs, etc.). Even when looking for a bias, it is difficult to tell because it seems to simply inform the reader about solar energy information and what the government is trying to do to advance solar energy.

7. Relevance:

·       Is the content appropriate for your research needs?

·       Is the information useful for my purpose?

      This is a solid place to go for my research needs, since almost all of the solar energy advancements are particularly taken in to effect because of the department of energy. Although it is more difficult to find specific research articles (materials, physics, etc.), the content is appropriate to use as a baseline for information.

Part Three: Evaluating a Wikipedia Article

1. After reading the article, answer the following:

a.      What is the title and URL (web address) of this Wikipedia article?

The total is "Solar Energy" and the URL is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

b.     Judging by the introduction and table of contents, is this article well structured? Are any important aspects of the topic missing?

      Looking at the table of contents, this article seems very well structured--all of the topics that I have heard of are mentioned, and even more things that I have never heard of. I would expect a little more information on crystalline silicon and other materials used for solar energy cells.

c.      Do you see any warning messages at the top of the article?

      There are no warning signs, and it's actually listed as a "good article" which is only about 1 in 207 of all articles on Wikipedia--so that's going to be pretty useful.

d.     Are facts and claims consistently referenced throughout the article?

      Each paragraph has an average of 2-3 references, which just a couple of spots needing citations.

e.      Is the article written in a clear, readable manner, with appropriate use of illustrations?

      Yes, the article is written in a clear manner, with even a decent use of illustrations (mostly just energy comparisons). Though I would say it was a little harder to read than usual, but that could easily be contributed to the amount of statistical references.

f.       In the References list, references, do you think the number of references is appropriate to the content of the article? What types of sources are cited? In addition to the References or Notes, do you see External Links or Further Reading?

      There are over 100 notes and over 30 references, which seems to be an appropriate amount. A lot of the sources are from actual encyclopedias and published works. Actually, almost all are from published works. There are approximately 4 that take you to a website link, whereas most everything else is an ISBN number. 

      Also, there are 6 external links (one referencing NASA), 24 "see also" articles, and 5 related wikipedia articles. The notes are littered with pdf documents that can be opened up.

2. Go to the article’s “Talk” page and tell me:

a.      What WikiProjects (if any) does this article belong to.

      This article belongs to the following WikiProjects: Physics, Energy, Environment, Editorial Team/Vital.

b.     What rating has it been given on the Quality Scale (note that it may have several different ratings if it is part of several projects).

      The ratings on the Quality Scale it's been given are all GA-Scale, with Mid, Top, Top, and High Importance scales respective to the WikiProjects listed above.

c.      Based on your evaluation of the article, do you agree with this rating?

      Yes, I agree!

d.     Is there anything in the discussion on the article’s Talk page that causes concern or piques your interest, such as disputes between editors or comments on inaccuracies?

      Most of all of the changes are merely suggestions to add to the article, rather than actual changes to data and such. Only one of the notes mentions that isolation levels for most of the world's population is inaccurate, but the response noted that there is simply no source for this--so they're waiting on a source to prove or disprove the number that was given. But besides that, nothing!

3. Go to the article’s View History page and tell me:

a.      Does anything concern you about the editing history for this article?

       Nothing is concerning since the majority of the editing history is just additions of information, pictures added, broken links fixed, spelling mistakes and such.

Part Three: Reflect

Finally, reflect on how you will apply what you learned this week to your future research. 

I would say that the biggest thing I learned this week for my future research is the value of good quality research. Last week I was shocked to find out that even if information is correct and true, the way that it is communicated can be misleading and unhelpful to readers. So when I am looking for information on Solar Energy, I shouldn't just find information that is relevant and true, but also information that has a a clear and concise way of communicating it. In other words, spend loads of time verifying and checking whether or not the material I use is solid and valuable.