Part One

While searching for inventions in the 20th century, by using google and typing
in history of penicillin I came across one of the histories most powerful medical
breakthroughs, penicillin;

found at, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-real-story-behind-the-worlds-

first-antibiotic/.

In September of 1928 Dr. Fleming had arrived home from a summer vacation in
Scotland to find his prior studies of Staphylococcus aureus had grew into a mold,
which he discovered was penicillin. After extensive research into these accidental
findings he could test it on his first dying patient in March of 1942. Due to Dr.
Fleming not having the proper technology to isolate and purify the mold, he
received some help from a pathologist, Dr. Howard Florey, who extracted certain
elements of the findings and tested the purified penicillin on lab rats to find much
success. Others who helped in the findings of penicillin included, Dr. Ernest Chain
and Dr. Norman Heatley. The sites lay out is very intriguing as it comes with pictures
and great information. It is presented very well, and is an interesting read. The
author relayed information in a very intriguing way which captured the attention of
myself and kept me interested. The site initially caught my attention due to the
pictures in which they used. I find it very interesting to present historical
breakthroughs in an eye captivating way. The site accommodated the needs of a
kinesthetic learner by providing these images. (Markel, 2013)

Bibliography
Markel, D. H. (2013, September 27). iThe Real Story Behind Penicillin. Retrieved
from The Rundown: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-real-story-
behind-the-worlds-first-antibiotic/

References
H, D. M. (2013, Sep 27). The Real Story Behind Penicillin . Retrieved from Rundown.
Markel, D. H. (2013, September 27). The Real Story Behind Penicillin. Retrieved from
The Rundown: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-real-story-behind-
the-worlds-first-antibiotic/

Works Cited
H, D. M. (2013, Sep 27). The Real Story Behind Penicillin . Retrieved from Rundown.
Markel, D. H. (2013, September 27). The Real Story Behind Penicillin. Retrieved from
The Rundown: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-real-story-behind-
the-worlds-first-antibiotic/
Part Two

Domain Ending: .org

Authority: Dr. Howard Markel, wrote the article to relay historical information to the
public for a better knowledge of one of the most important breakthroughs of
medical history.
Author: Dr. Howard Markel
Mission: To give knowledge on a medical breakthrough
About us: A reliable news source for the public on events around the globe
Bias: No bias as it was an article based on a historical event, it was factual, not
informative.
Currency: September 27, 2016
Documentation: No supporting references.
Accuracy and Scope: One spelling error noted, interesting as well as a easy read.

After watching the video and looking through the criteria of the website, I do believe it is a
credible source. The website is an organizational website, however because the article was
based on a historical breakthrough, it is not bias in my opinion. In the About Us section, it
mentions that it is a news based site, which in turn could mean there is biased information
within the website. It is also stated in the video that .org sites my also be biased towards
information they relay to the public. The reason the site was created was so that the public
could have a reliable source for news from around the world. Reading the About the Author
can indicated that articles published by this individual could also be biased since he is a
medical doctor, which means his opinions on medicine and medical awareness could differ
from another stand point of view. When it comes to currency, because the article is based on
a historic event, the update for the article is not valid enough to state that the information
may be inaccurate for any given reason. The only reason to believe the information might
not be accurate would be that, although the author cited the pictures, he has no citations
backing up the information he posted within the article. There are no webpages he may
have gotten information from, or any book publishings that he may have read to gain the
knowledge he is relaying to the public or any intext citations to back up his information. The
only other questionable piece in this document is one misspelling which is pointed out in a
comment below, however this could always be an accidental typo.

I personally, would not use this cite, after looking through the credibility, based on
lack of resources for the information that the article talked about. After watching the videos
on how to evaluate websites, I learned more about being very particular and careful when
doing research assignments. Without knowing this information, any site would have
appealed to me, if I felt it was from a professional point of view. Little would I have known to
search for all the criteria listed in the videos to ensure I was receiving actual information.
This does wave a red flag to me, as I use google search engine for everything I research.
This exercise has taught me that I need to be more critical with the information I gather from
outside sources.
Part 3

Search engine one: Yippy.com

Search engine two: Blackle.com
Search engine three: Momma.com
The topic that I chose to research for part three was, Cautions about the internet. It came
to my surprise that each search engine had a few similarities. One of these similarities being
that the first page I clicked on with yippy.com appeared as the first page in all three of my
searches.

Yippy.com After typing in cautions about the internet into yippy, the only viable
piece of information that came up was that there were 1090652 approximate webpages
that matched my search. It did not give any indication of hits for any webpages the search
came up with. Prior to clicking on the link, Internet Caution - Silentlambs, I had noticed it was
a .org site which indicated the potential for bias information. Once I clicked the link and the
webpage appeared, I found it very bland and boring. The page only contained one picture,
and a mass amount of writing. The author was made clear as, William H Bowen, however
there were no citations to back up any of the information that was shared in the article. I
was not able to find an about us section which also waved some flags as I was not about to
gather information as to why the website was created and who participated in the articles
the webpage had. I personally do not like this site, nor do I enjoy the search engine I used to
find this site. I didnt find any helpful information as there was no citations on the
information that was given in the article. There were no pictures to create more of an
interest to the reader and the writer was very biased in only stating the negative outlooks of
the internet nor was there a publication date. Therefore, I do not believe this website would
be a viable website to use for any source of projects or even for self gain of knowledge.

A. The home page was simple, and did not offer helpful links and or images,
the site was not unique.
B. There was no section about hits however, the search engine located
1090652 articles related to the search.
C. The results were relevant, however without the proper resources they were
unhelpful as it is hard to decipher if the information within the website is
true or from ones own perspective.
 D. Yippy.com was not a bad engine to use, I appreciated the number of
webpages it offered that linked to my search, however I did not like how
busy it looked once all the links popped up.
E. I would not use this engine again
It was too busy for me and I found it distracting

Blackle.com Blackle.com, prior to opening the webpage was already a no for

me after typing in cautions of the internet. I would shy away from this site as well the
webpage as there were many things in which did not appear right away. I was unable to see
how many searches came up on this search engine, nor was I able to see the hits that the
website had. However, after opening the article, although the page was bland and
somewhat unattractive, I would use the website for any informational purposes. The
webpage I chose was called On the internet - FBI and was a .gov webpage. This lead me to
believe that the information was indeed factual, and would have the backup it needed to
ensure the information was accurate. The article was all about how to protect yourself from
hackers, as well as scammers, and how to avoid becoming vulnerable to the public through
the simple device of a computer. The webpage was directed in a more negative outlook
rather than trying to ensure people it isnt always about the bad things, and the internet
could be used in many positive ways. This lead me to believe that there is a bit of bias
incorporated into this webpage. The positive about the webpage is that there were indeed
many outside sources linked back to this page. There were citings throughout the article
that you could click on if you were looking for more information from another source. I was
unable to find an author, however there was an about page that was very detailed with a lot
of information. I do believe the site is a helpful site as it is a government webpage and has
the backup to support the information relayed on there. I would personally use this for a
research project, and would recommend this site to many other people for any information
they are searching for.

A. The page was very bland and boring pictures were limited and it was not
unique. It was a very basic webpage.
B. There was no area that mentioned hits prior to opening the page or while
having the page opened. However, there was an extensive number of
webpages which appeared relating to the initial search.
C. The information that was located on the site was very relevant and very
useful. Although the information focussed mainly on how to deal with
negative impacts of the internet, there were many links and outside sites
tied into the webpage for resources.
D. I did not enjoy the engine I used, as the dark colours were conflicting and
hard to focus on, however the webpage that was associated with the search
engine was a website I would use in the future.
E. I dont think I would use this search engine as my first choice.
F. The reason I would not choose this engine as my first choice is because the
darkness of the engine bothered my eyes, however if I needed reliable
information that I could trust and was having difficulties finding that
information I would turn to this engine.

Momma.com Momma.com surprised me in a way that the other sites did not.
When I search for the cautions of the internet, only 5 sites appeared that I could go into for
information on this topic. There was, like the other sites, no information on hits, so the
amount of people who have visited the site was unknown. The webpage was, On the Internet
- IOT Security Best Practice. The webpage had no detail pertaining pictures, however was
different from the rest of the pages and had steps for situations and drop downs for different
topics. I was a little confused in this site, which could come from the fact that I didnt
understand a lot of the information it was talking about. However, I do believe for someone
that was interest in this topic it would be very helpful. The website had different subject
headings for different practices for the internet, each heading dropped down which you
would click into and read. The author was stated once at the page; however, resources were
not made clear from the few drop downs I had clicked. This site was a .com site and provided
an about us section. I would say that I would use this page IF the topic of interest was
appealing to me, as there are many different outside perspectives linked to this page which
allows a non-bias setting.

A. The home page was a mix between bland but interesting. There were no
pictures, which made it plain, however, there was drop downs to read full
articles on topics regarding cautions of the internet. This allowed choices
for the reader, which made the website more interesting.
B. The search engine did not identify any hits and or extensive amounts of
sites. There were only 5 sites that I could choose from.
C. The website was helpful, the reason being, it allowed you to go from the
bigger idea of cautions about the internet, to choose what you wanted to
specifically find out.
D. I disliked the fact that this engine did not allow many options for websites.
E. I would not use this search engine again for research
F. I would not use this search engine again because it does not allow a lot of
options to choose from and is not something I have used before therefore it
is out of my comfort zone. The other engines acted like google, but this
engine acted like a search bar on a website page.
i