| |
|
|
I. The Problem
The Internet is a relatively new and
untested information and communication medium. As such, we need to
evaluate, expand, and adapt existing criteria for evaluating content, as
well as develop new techniques.
The Internet is a ubiquitous
medium: aside from questions of affordability, it is very
pervasive in both authorship and audience. A web address is now an
international information and persuasion medium
The Internet can very well be an
unregulated and un-regulatable medium. As such, it is the visitor to a
website who must have both tools and responsibility to discern quality
websites.
II.. Examples of the problem
Have you been to New
Hartford, Minnesota? (Probably only virtually...)
What do you think of the distinguished academic study "Feline
Reactions to Bearded Men" by Catherine Maloney, Fairfield
University, Fairfield, Connecticut, Sarah J. Lichtblau, University of
Illinois, Champaign, Illinois Nadya Karpook,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Carolyn Chou, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Anthony Arena-DeRosa,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts?
Will you be persuaded by http://www.kosovo.com/,
Amnesty
International, the Yugoslavian government's official page on Albanian
terrorism, or the U.S. Department of State's briefing on Kosovo.
III. Eight basic types of website purposes:
- personal with biographic data, often called "vanity pages"
- promotional to sell a product
- "current" to provide extremely up-to-date information, as
for newspapers' sites
- informational to share information on a particular topic or hobby
- persuasive as propaganda to convert you to particular point of view
- instructional to teach a unit or course of study;
- registrational to register for courses, information, and/or
products, accumulate a database of, and simplify communication with,
registrants
- entertainment!
Characteristics of 5 types
(outside links):
Jan Alexander and Marsha Tate,
Wolfgram Memorial Library,
Widener University
IV. Contexts of website evaluation:
header * body
* footer * navigation
V. Five evaluative guidelines
from the School of Journalism & Library
Science:
Authority Who is
responsible for the page?
What are their qualifications and associations, and can you verify them?
Check the footer
for name of the web page author, his/her credentials and title,
organizational affiliation. Is the information verifiable?
Currency Are
dates clear when the website was first created and edited?
Check the footer
for when the website was created, and when last edited.
Check the content
for news items, indications that the site is actively maintained,
acknowledgements/responses to visitors
Coverage
What is the focus of the site? Are
there clear headings to illustrate an outline of the content? Is
the navigation within the website clear?
Check the header
for a clear title and web site description
Check the content
for headings and keywords
Check the navigation
to reflect content outline within the web site
Objectivity
Are biases clearly stated? Are affiliations
clear?
Check the content
for statement of purpose,
to determine the type of web site and potential audience
for outside links for information external to the website
for graphics and cues for affiliations
Check the header/footer and URL/domain
(.gov .com .edu)
to determine organizational source of website and how this reflects on
content type
Accuracy Are
sources of information and factual data listed, and available for
cross-checking
Check the content
for accuracy of spelling, grammar, facts(!), and consistency within
website
Check content for a bibliographic
variety of websites (external links), of electronic media (electronic
databases of references, established (print & on-line) journals,
of electronic indexes (ERIC), and of books for comparative/evaluative
purposes
Check external web site rating services
e.g. Britannica
VI. Bibliography (Author, web site, date last visited) related
to evaluation:
(University of California at Los Angeles/UCLA) Esther
Grassian's Thinking
Critically about World Wide Web Resources http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/instruct/web/critical.htm
" Questions" are divided into topics as Content &
Evaluation, Source & Date, Structure, and "Other".
(10 April, 2002)
(University of California at Los Angeles/UCLA) Esther
Grassian's Thinking
Critically about Discipline-Based World Wide Web Resources
http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/instruct/web/discp.htm,
is adapted from Thinking Critically about World Wide Web Resources.
(10 April, 2002)
(Utah State University) John H. Curry's Evaluation
of web-based instruction http://english.usu.edu/jcurry/wbi.html#evaluation.
A compilation of web pages by subject areas: theory, evaluation,
design. (10 April, 2002)
(Johns Hopkins University) Elizabeth E. Kirk Evaluating
Information found on the Internet http://milton.mse.jhu.edu:8001/research/education/net.html
(10 April, 2002)
(Western Illinois University) Bruce Leland Evaluating
Web Sites: A Guide for Writers http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfbhl/evaluate.htm
(10 April, 2002)
(Babson College) Hope Tillman Evaluating
Quality on the Net http://www.hopetillman.com/findqual.html
(10 April, 2002)
(Saint Louis University) Craig Branham
Evaluating
Web pages for relevance
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/2.2/news/youcanuse/craig/page01.html
Well developed website with sections on Anatomy of a page, Page types, Web
search strategies, and Glossary. (10 April, 2002)
Feedback to improve
this page
(please specify which page)
The Study Guides and Strategies web site was created and is
maintained by Joe
Landsberger,
academic web site developer at the University
of St. Thomas (UST), St. Paul, Minnesota. It is collaboratively
maintained across institutional and national boundaries, and last revised
September 04, 2002 .
Permission is granted to freely copy, adapt, print,
transmit, and distribute
Study Guides in settings that benefit learners. On the WWW, however, please link
rather than put up your own page since pages are frequently modified and
improved in consideration of educational research. No request to link is
necessary. Additional contributions and translations are warmly
received.
|
 |