Blog Post #3 - Create a new entry using Blogger. Choose an online news article published by Time, The New York Times, or The Huffington Post and track its cited sources. Visit each source online and evaluate its credibility based on the guidelines set in Criteria to Evaluate the Credibility of WWW Resources. Draft a blog post that briefly states a potential impact of unrestricted web publishing through mass media as it relates to this article.

Scrolling through Huffingtonpost.com, I went to my main interest, the health tab. This brought up a few articles, but I decided on "Are Positive People Really Healthier?". This article talked about positivity and health, how they're related and if positive thinking can really keep you healthy. This was a post taken from MensJournal.com. While this website itself isn't necessarily "reliable", the article itself cited some very credible sources. These sources ranged from PubMed, which is part of the U.S National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Harvard.edu and the Mayo Clinic. I also searched for the professor cited in the beginning and he was a credible, psychology professor from Loyola University. Overall, this article was credible and gave good, scientific information to back up their claim. 

Once I found the original article, it was easy to locate the sources cited. In the post from Huffingtonpost.com it wasn't as clear where the information was coming from. The article talked a lot about research but there wasn't any way to locate the research from the article. This was only possible once I found my way to Mensjournal.com. In this case it was all reliable information, but it could have easily been information pulled from random sources out of context and misconstrued. If this article had gone the way the title made it seem, asking "Are Positive People Really Healthier?", and they talked about how this was not true, they could have easily written a similar article without sources and it wouldn't be much different. Not having the sources readily available makes it seem less reliable. Unrestricted web publishing can pass off scientific sounding information as real. Articles like this get passed around often on social media. They are posted and reposted, and I doubt people are looking into the sources before they pass it along. Wrong information could be easily posted and passed around and the people passing it around wouldn't realize they were doing it.