Critiquing Websites

1
Critiquing Websites
2
Introduction

• Good quality information is objective, timely,
  accurate and complete
• Anyone can create a website, therefore, although
  much information found on the Web is reliable,
  some must be regarded as suspect.
• Some types of unreliable information are
• Hoax stories/parody websites
• Opinion presented as fact
• Hidden agenda

3
Introduction continued

• Whether the misinformation is accidental or
  intentional, comic or inflammatory, websites may
  be judged against set criteria.
• Misinformation in the medical or legal fields can
  be particularly dangerous.

4
Introduction continued

• The criteria for evaluating a website are listed
  on the next page.
• Questions to ask when judging a website against
  the different criteria are shown in more detail
  on the following pages.

5
Criteria

• Authority
• Accuracy
• Currency
• Objectivity
• Style

6
Authority

• Who wrote the website? What is its purpose? Is
  the material from a primary source?
• To identify the source use
• http//www.domaintools.com/
• http//www.register.com/retail/index.rcmx
• http//centralops.net/co/

7
Authority continued

• What do you already know about the source of the
  information? Is the source credible? What is
  its expertise? Is the information peer-reviewed?
• Authors recognised as experts within their peer
  group are usually cited in the literature. If a
  source claims official status this should be able
  to be verified.

8
Authority continued

• What information can you find from the website?
  Is there an About Us section?
• If there is no About Us section, this should
  lead you to investigate the website further.
• If you can find no information about the source
  on their own website, this is cause for concern
  and any information found must be treated with
  great care.

9
Authority continued

• Are there any clues in the web address?
• For example, if you were expecting a .org and you
  find a .com, this is sufficient grounds for
  suspicion and should lead you to investigate the
  website further. Look at other pages and check
  links that appear dubious.

10
Authority continued

• Is the material from a secondary source?
• A secondary source should always provide full
  references to the primary source. Checks can
  then be made with the primary source.
• If the information is correct you should be able
  to verify it with other sources.

11
Currency

• Can you establish the date the information was
  posted?
• Does the date given correspond with the time
  period of interest?
• Information may be time-sensitive. Material may
  have been correct at the time of writing but may
  not be correct at the time of reading.

12
Currency continued

• Has the date been automatically generated?
• To check for automatic date generation, click on
  your browsers View option and select Source.
  This opens up the html coding for the webpage you
  are viewing. Use your browsers Find feature
  (CtrlF) to enter the date exactly as it is
  displayed on the webpage you are viewing. If the
  date cannot be found, this means it has been
  automatically computer-generated.

13
Currency continued

• How often is the site updated?
• Out of date weblinks may mean that the site has
  not been updated recently and is therefore not
  current.
• Contact information for the website suggests a
  concern for site maintenance.

14
Objectivity

• Examine the writing style. Look for comic or
  inflammatory language.
• Is the overall tone of the website biased in
  favour of or against a particular viewpoint?
• Is the writer trying to influence you?

15
Objectivity continued

• Is opinion represented as fact? Are illogical
  conclusions drawn?
• Is there a hidden agenda?
• N.B. Beware of extremes.

16
Style

• Is it well-written?
• Well-written information is easy to understand.
  Check other pages on the website for consistently
  poor quality. Spelling mistakes, grammatical
  errors and lack of punctuation indicate that the
  writer is careless and consequently unreliable.
• N.B. Not all high-quality writing reflects
  accuracy but poor writing is a clue to an
  unreliable website.

17
To summarise

• Always be skeptical.
• Constantly check the credibility of the data.
  Criticise as you read.
• Remember, anyone can create a website.

18
Bibliography

• Evaluating the quality of Web information
  websites
• http//www.virtualchase.com/quality
• http//www.virtualchase.com/articles/hoax.html
• http//www.vuw.ac.nz/staff/alastair_smith/evaln/in
  dex.htm
• http//www.hopetillman.com/findqual.html
• http//www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/resear
  ch/webeval.html
• http//lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html
• http//www.lib.lfc.edu/help/evalweb.html
• http//www.ithaca.edu/library/training/think.html
  (includes quiz)

19
Bibliography continued

• Evaluating the quality of Web information books
• Cooke, Alison. Authoritative guide to evaluating
  information on the Internet. Neal-Schuman, 1999.
• Mintz, Anne. Ed. Web of deception
  misinformation on the Internet. Information
  Today, 2004.

20
Bibliography continued

• To identify sources
• http//www.domaintools.com/
• http//www.register.com/retail/index.rcmx
• http//centralops.net/co/

21
Bibliography continued

• Crime, hoaxes, scams, fraud
• http//www.antiphishing.org/ (Committed to wiping
  out Internet scams and fraud)
• http//hoaxbusters.ciac.org/ (Describes hoaxes
  and chain letters)
• http//urbanlegendsonline.com/ (Myths and
  superstitions)
• http//urbanlegends.about.com/ (Hoaxes and
  folklore)

22
Bibliography continued

• Taking it further
• http//www.ic3.gov/ (Internet Crime Complaint
  Center)