This website does a good job explaining how to adequately evaluate a website for authority and accuracy. However, it makes a few flaws. For one, going by solely a domain name can be disastrous. For example, I have had teachers in the past say, “Don’t use .com websites because these are controlled by commercial interests.” .com websites can be run by different people, including private individuals. Many blogs, including wordpress, are “.com’s”, but they have no offiliation with a commercial company, except that the author of the blog might pay to rent their domain name. Other sources, such as .gov, should not be trusted simply because they come from an apparent, trusted authority. whitehouse.gov, for instance, is often times changed by the sitting administration to show facts and figures that present either the administration itself or the ideologies/policies it practices in a more favorable light. Now, there may not be any lies within these sources, but the point is you also may not  be given the complete picture, which is very important when writing an academic paper. Thus, I would almost unilaterally throw out the idea that a websites domain can constitute whether or not it’s a trusted source – I don’t think it should be considered in the least. Instead, other elements, such as knowledge of the author, the qualifications of the group or user who created the site, and if information given is sourced in some way are so much more important that it entirely eclipses the relevance of a website’s domain.

While websites intentions and language should be considered, it is also important to note that not all articles and sites whos purpose is to persuade are written in a persuasive tone. A economics site written by a professor, who clearly favors Kensian economics, from an esteemed university may present any alternative economic policies in a slightly negative light. For example, one could say that under Jimmy Carter’s administration, wealth disparity in the United states was at its lowest point in history. This is true, and stating such a fact is simple and fine and doesn’t obviously have an intension to persuade. But ignoring the fact that under Carter’s administration the United States was under an era of “stagflation” shows biased. Another example is the fact that the economy grew during most of President Bush’s tenure in the white house. Yet with a wealth disparity of 217%, that growth wasn’t necessarily felt by the middle and lower classes of Americans.

The wikipedia article I chose to evaluate was an article on Khubilai (Kublai) Khan, the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire and the founder of the Chinese Yuan Dynasty. I have extensively studied Khubilai in the past, so my own experience can help me evaluate the article. For the most part the article is factually correct and well sourced. Among the sources was my main source when I studied him, Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times by Morris Rossabi. These are books and articles that are readily available. However, there are a few references that are lacking. One of them is “History of the Yuan Empire”. There is no other information included as to what this “history” is. Is it a textbook? Another article on wikipedia? A website? This brings up many questions. There are also important facets of information missing. For example, traditionally the Chinese viewed all non-Chinese people as outsiders and worked so that they did not rely on foreigners for anything. The Yuan Dynasty changed that, especially in terms of engineering and accounting. Rather than trusting his chinese advisors, Khubilai would often refer to his muslim engineers, astronomers, and scientists. This was particularly alarming to the Chinese and created much strife within both the court and public society, as allegations of corruption and profiteering were rampant on both sides of the issue (Chinese vs. Muslims).

The point is that, while it is a good source, it is not totally trustworthy and definitely fails to address some important aspects of Yuan policy.