 |
| Condesign. "Books". 12/8/2015 via Pixabay. CC0 Public Domain. |
First Buzzfeed Post
This source comes from buzzfeed which normally wouldn't be good for credentials, but this is as close as I could get to the original post as it's since been taken down by the user. Here it simply serves to show that the photo has gone viral, because it includes a poll with several million votes. The author is Cates Holderness, Buzzfeed employee and author. Looking at her past articles, many of them have something to do with colors and optical illusions. She is credible enough for the purpose of this article, which is just to prove that the image was viral. The article came out the day after the photo of the dress was posted, and represents the audience of the event- everyone looking at the dress trying to decide what color it is.
People are upset
This source comes from Time Magazine which is a quite reputable source. The author is Rishi Lyengar, writer for Time who writes mostly about relations with and within other countries that are experiencing turmoil. After evaluation I would say that the author is credible, although it's strange that they're writing about something so trivial. The article was published two days after the original photo went viral, which is good because it didn't have much time to be influenced by other sources. But what's important here is the video it includes, which is a series of screenshots of celebrities tweeting about the dress. That's important because many of them are upset. Taylor Swift was "confused and scared". It's a relatively unimportant matter in the grand scheme, but people really cared about it.
Update: Still Upset
This comes from a source called FanSide, which isn't the most credible but that doesn't matter as much in this case because it's just a series of tweets which will supplement the proof that people got upset as part of the debate. It serves the same purpose as the source above.
Multiple Opinions- #1
This is a source from Mashable, a news/entertainment source that seems to be a mix of Time and Buzzfeed (I swear I'm not saying that because of my last two sources) which makes the credibility just okay- but that's exactly what I need for the purpose of this source. The authors are Jonathan Ellis & Dustin Drankoski, but there are no links to other articles they've written or any social media accounts they hold. This slightly worsens their credibility because now I'm doubtful of their work. But this still hasn't destroyed this article for the intended purpose. This came out the day after the dress went viral, which could mean they didn't really do much research on what they were writing. The purpose of this article is for me to show that there was debate on another level- this article says the dress looks white and gold because of a reason that's wrong (and I know because they remedied the issue in photoshop and I still see white and gold). I want to show this view in contrast with others to disprove it and show the debate.
Opinion #2
This article come from the Guardian, an online news source. The author is Ian Sampling, science editor of the guardian. But before he became editor, he was a journalist at New Scientist and he also hold a PhD in biomedical materials from Queen Mary's, London. His credibility is very strong. This article came out a few months after the dress went viral, which could mean he had more time to debate the science behind his explanation. This source offers the view of someone with better credentials than the first, and someone proposing an alternate opinion which I can evaluate and consider. He represents the science side of the stakeholders, the people trying to explain what is going on.
Opinion #3- the best so far
This is the source that everyone is quoting in their articles regarding why we see different colors. It comes from Wired, another online news source. It publishes articles on design, culture, science and travel. It's written by Adam Rogers, and editor for Wired and author of other scientific novels. The article was published the day after the dress picture went viral, right along with the timeline.The information that it offers is the third and final scientific explanation that I want to toy with, additionally it seems to be the most quoted in other articles about the dress. This is an important scientific opinion, and the most researched, therefore an important element to my controversy post mortem.
This is important I Swear
This article comes from a website called Pascal's Pensées, which I have never heard of but seems to be a science magazine- it's self described as "Contemplations from the trenches of Neuroscience, Psychology, Metaphysics and Life". It's written by a user by the name of Lascap, who has written many scientific articles for the website, mostly regarding neuroscience. Based on this, I give the website fairly good credibility. The article was published three days after the original photo went viral, which means the user had enough time to think about the reason people see different colors, but not so long that he could have taken ideas from other scientists. This source offers a new perspective- why it's important that we care about the dress. He also offers another reason as to why we see the colors we see, but when many people (including myself) are guilty of saying that the debate doesn't matter, this is an important perspective to consider.
No Really It's Important
This article, also from the Guardian (an online news source) is written by Bevil Conway, a regular author for the Guardian. It was published two days after the photo went viral, which seems at this point to be the article-publishing window for things like this. This article represents why we should care about the dress from a different perspective- that which color we see could have something to do with out emotional build and who we are as a person. While I don't personally think that's the reason,
the article doesn't actually make an argument for that side- it simply presents what we know to be true and why that might have something to do with color corresponding to emotions. It represents the point of view of someone with another opinion, but with an added dimension as to why we should care.
For an Emotional Reason?
This article comes from CNN, written by Mel Robbins, a legal analyst for CNN online. It was published three days after the dress post, and makes an important point as to why we care about such trivial things on the internet. She's got an analytic stakeholder position, but for yet another reason which covers every facet imaginable. I want to make sure I've covered all opinions- why we care, what we see, and why this happens- and this article is the last piece in that puzzle.
Context!
Who doesn't love a little context? This article provides the background story. It comes from BBC, which is a credible source already. It's written by Mukul Devichand, who is an editor for BBC News. He interviewed the people at the heart of the color controversy- the mother of a bride who bought the dress to wear it to a wedding and sent the famous photo to her daughter for approval. This article was actually published almost a year after the fact, when everyone had stopped caring about the dress. This is fine though, it only means he had time to reach out and speak to the woman and gather information. And it represents a unique stakeholder which cannot be part of a group- the woman who actually took the photo. This is a valuable perspective to have as far as this story goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment