SWA #11: pg. 336 #9

The credibility of an article can be measured by whether or not the source is associated with an upstanding, recognizable organization, by the domain that it is listed under, by whether or not the source is published in a peer-reviewed journal, by if it is current, well-edited, reasonable, well-documented, and by if it is moral, ethical, and supported by evidence that is unbiased.  Based on these various types of criterion, not all of the articles on homelessness in Columbia would be considered credible.  The most credible articles might be those such as "What Did Not Work: Effort to Centralize Homeless Services" by C. Grant Jackson, and "Opposition to Shelter Rises" by John C. Drake.  These articles provide quotes from people offering opinions about the matter at hand, and they insert data and solid facts that serve as evidence to help support their points.  In contrast to the many editorials presented in this chapter, these articles are much more unbiased, and they portray all sides of the issue.  

Some of the less-credible articles in this chapter include "Columbia Council Should Support Mission, Homeless", "Columbia Must Care for Homeless as Well as Bantus", because they are editorials, and they do not even provide the reader with an author's name.  The level of  credibility is instantly detracted from because the audience does not know whether a trustworthy, reliable person is writing the words, and they are provided with no logical reason as to why they should trust the author's opinion.  These articles present much less solid, factual evidence helping to make their points, and instead, they offer subjective views about one side of the issue.  These would not make good sources in a scholarly research paper because they are limited as to the amount of reasonable proof and support they provide.  Less credible sources can however be used in a research paper if the writer is trying to sway the audience one certain way instead of arguing all sides of an issue.