Practical 7 - Reflections

Briefly reflect on lessons learnt from this practical:

a. Which criteria did you use to evaluate talkingcock.com? Why did you choose this criteria?

b. How did you feel about participating in the role plays?

Are the facts accurate? Does it use research as a basis? Is there political, ideological, or biasness in the source? Is it a factual site or one that contains an opinion? Are the references stated clearly? Is it free from grammatical, spelling and typographical errors?

A) I used Accuracy to evaluate this site. We're viewing this site from an ideological basis, it seemed like a site filled with opinions and biasness toward political and social events happening in Singapore, and it is important to judge whether it is a factual site, or one of opinion. It isn't a site that gives black and white information, but has been packaged with comedy and humour. Most humour sites such a this one usually poke fun at certain social norms in society, so it is important to double-check through all content to make sure that there isn't a bias/judgmental voice in the information.

B) Our group took the role of being foreigners. And to be honest, it is so much more different to put myself outside of the perspective of a Singaporean. We grew up here, and we take some of the social norms like its nothing; like chopping seats with tissue paper, not stepping over jossticks, illegal to possess chewing gum for a long time, these are things we accept and don't take notice of. But as a foreigner, talkingcock.com did sound like a shrewd and witty site that would make foreigners either appreciate the comedy or be offended by our coarseness.