Evaluation of Social Media Sources

I chose to use a blog and some comments posted on a forum as my two social media sources. There wasn't a lot of mainstream media attention around my controversy because it was a intellectual theoretical debate between two physicists about crystals and perpetual motion that was proven through math but not in a laboratory yet. This was the reason why I could not find any tweets about it on the author's twitter account or any other twitter accounts. Storify led me to these two sources. Both sources provide opinions about the emergence of a possible time crystal that would revolutionize physics way of thinking about time. kbentley57 provided an opinion about how this was a perpetual motion machine but that there was no way to extract energy from it. While the other source, a blog run by Gordon Bonnet expressed an opinion that people would read this new possibility and make it into some proof of God.

Source 1: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/15/2246231/physicists-propose-perpetual-motion-time-crystals/informative-comments#comments

• Credibility -kbentley57 is the author of comment I am using as my first source. kbentley57's profile gives no name, twitter handle, facebook link or email.
• Location -kbentley57 is not directly involved in my controversy and not at the scene of the controversy either.
• Network -This was posted on a forum and kbentley57's account has no visible friends or followers.
• Content - kbentley57 references the article the commenter is commenting on but besides that there is no corroborating evidence.
• Contextual updates -kbentley57's account does have a technology focus but there was no follow up on this comment or update.
• Age -The account first activity was March 22, 2011. There is no date for when the account was created however.
• Reliability -The source is not reliable for any factual evidence but may be reliable for an opinion about the subject in question.

Source 2: http://skeptophilia.blogspot.com/2013/04/precision-presumption-and-time-crystals.html

• Credibility - The author of post is Gordon Bonnet. He is an independent writer, novelist and a science teacher.
• Location - Bonnet is not at the place where the controversy is taking place and he is not apart of the controversy besides a critic.
• Network -The blog is hosted by blogspot and it is impossible to tell who follows the blog. Bonnet does have a twitter account and he has over 2000 followers. None are of any celebrity. He also has over 100 members of google plus following him and close to 100 people following him on networkedblogs.
• Content - Bonnet provides links in his post to the articles in references.
• Contextual updates -There is no update to the blog.
• Age - This post was posted in April of 2013 but the blog has been posted on since October of 2010.
• Reliability -Again, Bonnet provides links to the material he is referencing in his post but his opinion about the subject at face value is the only thing reliable. He has no background in this type of physics and provides no new insight into the subject matter beyond his opinion about it.