The CRAP Test

March 9th, 2020

Yep, you heard that correctly. This charming acronym is my new best friend due to its ability to sum up and weed out unreliable sources, which is vital while I continue to research the laws in Seattle about busking and the history surrounding my beautiful instrument. The CRAP test (Currency, Reliability, Authority, and Point of View) is a handy way to judge literally any source, be it electronic or physical. By checking the source against the acronyms, we can determine whether the source would be accepted in reports and/or contains valid and useful information. First, we look at currency. When was the source created, and does it still prove useful today? Using a book from 1998 is all well and good, but how much can it really tell you about the state of today's government? Next, we determine the reliability of the source. Can this source be verified, and does it present the entire picture? We don't want to end up using a random, twisted article on our glittering new project, especially if said article has no evidence of being true. After determining the quality, we now turn to the authority. Who created this source - a college professor or a 30-something year-old in a basement who created it to kill time? A good source has, most importantly, the name of the author as well as their background and possibly reviews. Without this, there is no way to accurately determine the credibility. Finally, after rereading the source and checking for an author, we must determine the point of view this source takes. What bias does the author have, and is the substance fact or opinion? If we find traces of any ulterior motives, move on! Don't waste time on a source that can't properly contribute to a report or essay.

Now that I've properly introduced the CRAP Test, it's time to put it to use: I've pulled up two different articles about busking in Seattle, and now I'll figure out whether a) they are good sources, and b) which of the two is generally more trustworthy. First we have an article titled: "What it takes to be a busker in Downtown Seattle" from the Seattle Globalist. My first impression is one of grudging admiration - I can already see an author and date (Upakar Pandey, July 14, 2016), and the first paragraph is grammatically correct and thoughtfully written. After reading the article, I can say that the article is a little older than what I would like to see, but still recent enough to give it credibility. It describes the problems buskers can face by interviewing a busker and a manager at Pike Place Market. Another positive detail strikes me at the end: There is a small paragraph at the end that tells us a little bit about the author, who was apparently a student in a worldwide journalism program. To summarize, this article has a verifiable author, a reasonably current date, facts and quotes from other reliable sources, and no distinguishable bias, which means that it is a solid source.

The next article I'm taking a look at is called "Projecting voices: Busking is alive and well on the streets of Seattle" and is published by Real Change, "Seattle's award winning street newspaper". The web address shows us that this article was written by an organization, which provides credibility. Next, the author and date published is listed (Alex Visser, September 6th, 2017) which also proves reliable. The article itself describes how busking came to grow and now thrive in Seattle as well as citing a busker at Pike Place market, much like the previous article I read. However, one key detail is different: This author actually performed at Pike Place Market for a day and described the experience. To conclude, this article is also a good source - it comes from a reliable site, there is a verifiable author, the date is recent, and it consists of facts and quotes, not opinions.

After using the CRAP Test on two similar articles, I can safely conclude that both are solid sources with thoughtful and interesting material, verifiable authors, recent dates, no ulterior motives, and outside sources included to keep it real. If I had to choose on source over the other to include in a report or as background research for this project, I would probably go with the second article due to the section written from experience and the fact that it was published by an organization.

Note: Due to a recent bout of pneumonia and the growing threat of the coronavirus in Seattle and the surrounding cities, I might have to change my courage project to something less public. We'll see.

Stay gold,

Catnip E.