Article 1 - The Biggest Cloud Computing Risk Is Impossible to Eliminate
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.hacc.edu/docview/1033009679?accountid=11302
For this article, I would say it is very credible. It relates to my topic by discussing how the biggest risk to cloud systems are humans themselves (i.e. hackers). The article was published in August 2012, but was last updated in November 2012, which is good since technology can change in a fairly short amount of time. It was written by Kevin Fogarty, a freelance writer who blogs daily at ITWorld.com, but has also had his articles shown in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, CNN.com, CIO, ComputerWorld, Network World, and many other high-end IT publications. CIO is a trade journal for IT's which is how I found it through the Proquest database. They are heavily focused on tech related news and topics, especially computer security, data storage, and cloud computing. Kevin Fogarty is more than qualified to write about such topics. He writes only about virtualization, cloud computing, security, and IT innovations for 18 years, winning many awards for his publications. Although the article came from networkcomputing.com, it is a reliable trade journal that many in the field find valid. The tone if quite informative, though slightly persuasive. He is trying to show that there is a great risk to could computing but he stakes his knowledge behind it, and that makes me feel that it is genuine and true.
Article 2 - Hacker attacks threaten to dampen cloud computing's prospects
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-cloudcomputing-idUSTRE7521WQ20110603
This article is credible to the extent of the time it was written for. In it, the authors, Clare Jim and Lee Chyen Yee, discuss how Google's Gmail service and Sony's Playstation gaming network got hacked. The problem is that it was almost over 2 years ago. I remember back then when it was news and it got some media coverage. It is related to my topic by showing that these hacking attacks hinder cloud system's being implemented due to being highly seceptible to hackers. The article comes from the website for Thomas Reuters, which is the "leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals." This is also a .com website yet seeing as it comes from Thomas Reuters I would call it acceptable. They use many quotes from people at corporations, showing that they took the time to talk to different people about the incident and investigate a little before writing the article. I feel the article is just to state facts about the incident at hand, and present dialog from the affected or others to open up the topic a little more.
Overall, I believe the first article is more credible, though I think they are both highly credible, only due to the fact that it is the most recent, and therefore the most relevant. They were both very professional in their delivery and got information from credible sources to add to what they were saying. The articles coming from where they came from makes them very credible as well. Highly rated, well respected, writers and news agencies do not get that sort of status from providing false information over and over again. I would definitely use either of these articles in any type of research work project.
You make a couple of good points here: the currency of technology research is really important and the source of publication is one indicator or trustworthiness. Keep in mind, however, that even credible writers can write arguments that are without credibility. A writer must take responsibility to adequately support his claims. Make sure your credibility evaluations don't simply focus on the "who" behind the claims. Evaluate the claims themselves. Do they seem reasonable? Are they well-documented and supported by evidence?
ReplyDelete