Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Upon searching for social media sources for my controversy, the horizon was completely and totally broadened. Not only was it easy to find posts about my controversy, but the posts were also more stimulating and engaging than the scholarly articles. However, the question arises of whether the sources are credible or not.

lonaug, "Twitter" 04/2015 via pixabay, Creative Commons License

"Animals on Trial"
Credibility- This was posted on Al Jazeera News' stream, so the organization is more credible than just say, a tweet, but it is still a popular news source that thrives on the popularity and media attention of their articles, so they are not credible in a scholarly way.
Location- There are many locations mentioned in this article, not just one, including international locations, so this does not give any more insight to credibility.
Network- There are many followers to this news source, but most are just the general public, which in fact, takes away from the credibility of the source. However there are posts of more credible people posting about the controversy in this article.
Content- Their information does include sources to an extent, so it can be corroborated and confirmed.
Context- Al Jazeera posts about whatever sheared and popular in the news, they don't mention much more about the subject besides this one article.
Age- The article was posted 9 months ago, so it may not be as relevant today.
Reliability- The source seems relatively reliable. For a news source, it is not as bad as Fox News. However I would still take this information with a grain of salt.

"Animal Mind Control- The Future is Now!"
Credibility- This was posted on a personal, public blog. The author's username is Jour2722, but not much else can be found about them, so the source comes off with little credibility or validity.
Location- The author's location is also unknown, so nothing is added or deducted from the information presented by the location. However, again, there is no credibility because of this.
Network- The network is not readily available since this is a blog on wordpress that doesn't appear to get very much traffic. This lack of network also deducts from the validity of the source, since no one else is discussing the article.
Content- The content includes sources, a great deal of relevant information, and is written well as a blog post. This is the most redeeming quality of the article.
Context- This person posts only about such controversies and scientific discoveries, so this might be a blog they use for their studies, which adds to their credibility.
Age- The post was from 2013, so it may not be as relevant today.
Reliability- The source seems very unreliable, but by the actual article, including the sources that were included, I am convinced this is a credible and reliable source.