Evaluating Web Resources (Adair and Pullen, 2006, revised)

This page revises the 2006 text and links of Jimmy Adair and Michael Pullen's original Nexlearn tutorial �

Evaluating Web Resources
On July 6, 2004, the New York Post posted an exclusive story, "Kerry picks Gephardt" -- referring to the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, choosing Richard Gephardt of Missouri for his running mate. A few hours later, John Kerry announced his choice -- John Edwards. Another New York paper, the Times, has had problems of at least one reporter making up information for stories. (try a search for Jayson Blair in FirstSearch to find out more).

Not all information in print or online is true and correct. Once, on the classic TV series "Gunsmoke," several of the characters were discussing the fact that one of them couldn't read. The character's response was, "How do we know that the one who did the writin' wrote down what actually happened?"

That is a good question, for print and online sources. But there are ways to increase the chance of finding true information on the Internet.

The following material is adapted from the online course "Electronic Databases and Online Services" written by Teresa Dalston and Michael Pullin -- used by permission).

One should evaluate at least the following 6 criteria:
 * authority
 * reliability
 * currency
 * bias
 * purpose
 * scope

Authority
Sometimes the site is a personal Web page; sometimes it is for a corporation or institution. Either way someone (or some group) created the content for the site. What qualifications does the person (or group) have to testify to the information? For example, if I were to create a site that claimed to be the definitive site for all information related to home repair and improvement, what qualification do I have to be able to say that? If I added to my site that I have been in the home repair and improvement business for many years (and my name was Bob Vila), then the authority for the site is high.

One simple way to begin to evaluate a Web site's authority is by analyzing the URL. URL stands for Uniform Resource Locator. A URL is synonymous with "Internet address" and the two terms can be used interchangeably. Break down this URL -- http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/petitions/repemaps.html -- in the following manner:


 * 1) Ignore the http:// part as most browser windows will automatically add that part for you.
 * 2) The next part of the url contains two, three, or four sets of letters and numbers separated by dots (.) These sets of letters and numbers identify levels of the domain. The server name identifies the computer on which the resource is found. (Computers that store and "serve up" Web pages are called remote servers.) This part of the URL commonly identifies which company, agency or organization that is directly responsible for the information and maintaining the computer/server where the information is stored. In our example, the domain is "memory.loc.gov".
 * 3) Anything past the next slash (\ or /) is referencing a location within the Web server. A tilde (~) immediately after the slash after the domain may indicate a personal site.
 * 4) Look at the last set of letters from the domain -- this set is called the suffix or top domain. These are some common suffixes: .com (a business or personal site), .edu (educational institution, .ac for some in England), .gov (government site), .mil (military), .net (network organization) and .org (non-profit organization). Additionally, many sites based outside the United States will end in a two character country suffix like .ca for canada and .uk for the United Kingdom. A .edu or .gov should be fairly reliable; a .com, .net or .org may be obtained by anyone. In our example, we find that this site is a US government agency, specifically the Library of Congress.

So, now we know that the site above is hosted by the Library of Congress -- a fairly authoritative source. Others that are authoritative would be educational institutions. Many business, personal, and non-profit sites would be authoritative depending on who hosts and maintains them. Also, be careful of "hi-jacked" sites or "cyber-squatters" -- those whose domain names appear to be one thing, but are actually something else. One of the most famous (or infamous) is www.whitehouse.com (formerly a pornographic site, now a general Washington, D.C. site not related to the government) and www.whitehouse.gov (the official site for the President of the United States).

Reliability
Reliability could be a sub-point under authority, because it is usually directly related. Is the site a source for reliable information? Some people may read the "tabloids" in the check-out line at the grocery store for their news, but the reliability of this information should not be considered high (except for "Men In Black"). But, even with a usually authoritative institution backing the information, it is not always reliable. The New York Times was mentioned above. The incidents they had caused their reliability to be questioned by many people.

Some years ago a study was conducted assessing the accuracy of health information on the Internet. The authors used the topic "childhood diarrhea" and compared the information retrieved to the currently accepted practices recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Here are some of the results of that study:


 * Of 60 articles published by traditional medical sources, only 12 (20%) conformed to current AAP recommendations for treatment of children. The source of the information, even if from a major academic medical center, did not improve the likelihood of compliance. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated by information supplied on World Wide Web sites by traditional medical sources, recommendations for the treatment of acute diarrhea show a low percentage of concurrence with the AAP guidelines. Major medical institutions, schools, and hospitals need to devise ways to carefully monitor and establish quality control of what is being distributed from their home pages. Patients must be warned about the voluminous misinformation available on medical subjects on the Net. (McClung, HJ, Murray, RD, Heitlinger, LA. "The Internet as a source for current patient information" Pediatrics (1998 June) 101(6): E2.)

This study, and other experiences like it, remind us to use all sources -- even traditionally authoritative and reliable ones -- carefully.

�

Currency
Is the information up-to-date? Does the site have "last updated" information? A Web site that is not regularly updated could have information that is basically useless.

Bias
Considering who created the page, what slant might the information have? Even sources that should be un-biased have been shown "spin" information in such a way as to distort it.

Purpose
Doe the Web site have a mission statement or some other designation of its raison d'être (reason for being)? If so, does it meet that goal?

Scope
What subject(s), time period, formats or types of material are covered? Is the subject fully covered? To what level of detail?

Many resources exist on the Internet to help you evaluate Internet resources. For example, http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep00/piper.htm