Cynthia Vaskis
SLM521 Spring
2004
Evaluating Websites
File: e7evalws.htm
Evaluating Websites
Criteria for Evaluating Web sites
1. Accuracy -
How accurate is the information and can it be verified?
How reliable is the source
and can it be verified for any factual statements?
Is the information free from
errors?
Does it mention any editors
or fact checkers?
There are no set standards yet for evaluating the
accuracy of Web sites so that each individual must search out its sources and
verify that its information is valid.
2. Authority -
Can you identify who is responsible for the web page and are they reputable?
Can you identify the author
from the page and are they qualified to write on the subject?
Can you identify the
publishers and are they reputable?
Can you verify who is
responsible for the web page contents either through a link to a page
describing their goals, or a phone number or postal address to contact (not
just an email address)?
Does the page claim to have
official approval of an organization and does it mention the national or local
chapter?
Does it state the
organization’s name as copyright holder?
Anyone can write anything and put it up on the
Web. There is no way to validate its
sources and their qualifications for presenting the material other than the
readers verifying that themselves.
3. Objectivity - Is the Web page’s information been
biased, without clearly stated goals, and used for persuasive advertising?
Is there a bias in the information
given by the author or organization claiming responsibility for the content?
Is the information presented
misleading or incomplete by excluding opposing views?
To what extent does the
information try to persuade the viewer’s opinion?
Are the goals and aims or
the presenter clearly stated?
The Web can be used as a “soap box” for anyone to
express their opinions and use advertising to persuade others’ opinions.
4. Currency - How current is the page (first written,
placed on Web, last revised)?
Is the content of the Web
page up-to-date and the publication date clearly noted?
Is it clear which date(s)
are listed (first created, first placed on the Web, last
revised)?
Sometimes the dates maintained on a document are
updated by the database where it is kept. Unless the author specifically lists
the date embedded in the work’s text, the date the reader sees may be invalid
for the work’s creation date.
5. Coverage - Has the work’s topic been completely
and clearly discussed for its purposes?
What topics are discussed
and are they appropriate for the work?
Can you tell if the topics
have been clearly and completely discussed and to what depth of understanding
about the topic?
In other words, does the
work express superficial opinions or does it use experts’ knowledge about the
subjects?
Are the views expressed in
the work well supported by other documentation or organizational validation?
It is hard to verify if a topic has been fully
covered because there are so many sources for its information today. To have good coverage the topic must be
clearly stated and complete in its scope so that the reader can use that
information elsewhere or be able to form an educated opinion about the topic.
6. Copying Strategy - Has the copied version, through
a hypertext URL link, invalidated the work’s original intention?
Has the Web page been copied
accurately and still presents its intended purpose?
Was a search engine used to
retrieve the document causing it to be viewed out of context from its original
work?
Check the URL address for
the ending. Does it indicate what type
of organization they are claiming to be?
Was a hypertext link been
created to use this document and possibly misrepresent the work’s original
intention?
Has the work been used for
marketing purposes causing misuse of the work’s original intention?
Can you return to the
original source from the Web page being viewed to verify its intention and
validity?
Since hyperlinks can blend information in ways not
according to the work’s original intention and search engines can retrieve data
out-of-context it is important for the viewer to analyze the original source of
the works.
7. Challenge - Has the original information been
altered and can you find its source?
Has the original work been
altered or did a software requirement limit its complete access thus altering
its appearance and taking parts out-of-context?
Can you refer back to the
original source or has it moved or disappeared?
Can you verify that the
advertising and informational parts are combined by the same person or
organization?
Has the information,
entertainment, and advertising components of the “infomercial” been
appropriately blended without misrepresenting any of its original works?
Can you determine the
stability of your source from the search process?
Has the information been cut
or altered from the original work?
Can you verify the
information’s validity from other sources?
The challenge in validating the information on a Web
page is to know its source, where it came from, and how it got to the page you
are viewing You should also know whether or not it was altered along the way
or is being used in a way that misrepresents its original purpose.
8. How to Apply the Strategies
First, identify the type of page you are viewing (research, news,
commercials, informative, entertainment, medical information, business
advertising).
Second, use your checklist to ask appropriate questions.
Third, based on the number of “yes” or “no” answers from the appropriate
checklist questions, give your Web page
a quality rating (poor, fair, good, excellent).
Conclusion
Web page evaluation
techniques are only now being developed.
The way information is accessed and used is rapidly changing so that the
process for validation of Web page information will need to be updated
continuously in the future.
Web Page Evaluations
The following two Web pages
will be evaluated according to the items listed above and be given a rating as
to accuracy, clearness of goals, and completeness of information
presented. Follow the hyper-links below
to see the evaluations.
See the first Web site
evaluated with the checklist.
See the second Web
site evaluated with the checklist.
See the evaluation
template for a blank form.