Evaluation Of A Website About The Australian Federation

The implications of the catastrophe of wars between states in Australia would be most interesting in the historical genre if we reflect upon the possibility (proposed by a historian) that the serene, peaceful state we are in today would probably not occur and, furthermore, that the subject of history may not be the same. The reason this has not happened is due to Federation on the date of 1st of January, 1901. Federation is when the six separate British self-governing colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia formed one nation. Does this suggest that, in spite of common beliefs to the contrary, that Australia would not have been the same? John Lewis (1940- current) did once say, “I don't think the federation has a head; its neck has just grown up and haired over.” This could suggest a metaphor that Federation is lasting for years, but not going further in progress. A look at a single website source suggests and answers a lot, but must we find out the reliability of this source on federation. If we consider the website, http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/home.htm, we can pinpoint its perfections and flaws, and state whether this source can be trusted.

At this time, publications can have flaws due to who, what, when, where, why and how it was made. Firstly, we should look at the date of the publication and if the information is current or if it requires updating. This site is undeniably not up-to-date as it was made, written and published in 2001. Lots of information can be found in 10 years as the current year is 2011, thus being slightly uninformative if new sources of information are found. The only thing recently updated is the privacy and copyright page in 2010. ...

... middle of paper ...

...ssay question which states, “Evaluate the reliability and usefulness of the site to a student of History.” In the end, my final judgement is that the information is useful and reliable and even relevant though it cannot be judged how useful it is, because there is a lot of flaws in the website lots of information that is not in the website. Also, the website does not use eisegesis but rather factual information. Nevertheless, it is evident that this medium of information is substantially a good source due to the fact that it is from an organization with such a highly reputed name. For I was the audience in this situation, I think that for me this information is useful and reliable and, to conclude, looking back at Thomas Fuller’s quote, I believe he may be right for the case of this website, as I have learnt a vast amount of information from this source analysis.