Post on 22-Jun-2015
description
E VA LU AT I O N O F W E BS I T E S
WEBSITE CRITERIA
WEBSITE URL: SOURCE OF WEBSITE
• Government site?• www.whitehouse.gov www.state.gov
• Organizational?• www.peta.org www.occupywallst.org
• A dotcom site?• www.disney.com www.microsoft.com
.EDU = ACADEMIC, COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES
www.ucla.edu
www.csulb.edu
.GOV = GOVERNMENTwww.whitehouse.gov
www.cdc.gov
http://www.usda.gov/
.ORG = ORGANIZATIONScharitable, religious or lobbying group
www.peta.org
www.nra.org
OTHER URLS
http://www.army.mil/
.mil = military site
.net = network
http://www.whois.net/
WEBSITE CRITERIA
• Authority• Sponsor/organization: who sponsors the site? Govt,
organization, business, educational, or other?
• Contact Information• Is there an ‘About Us’ tab? Very important!
• Audience• Specific group or audience [edu site directed to students] • Specific age group? Other focus on specific audience
• Currency• Updated regularly [see date at bottom of first page of
site]
OTHER CRITERIA
• Authorship of material on site• Who writes material, entries or articles for the site? • Who is featured on the site [experts in the field, governmental
representatives, or other?]• Objectivity --- Factual/Biased• Advocacy : emotional appeals, biased language• Factual: statistics, facts, government information
• Coverage• Presents updated perspective on topic• How far back is information kept on the site? [backlog of articles or
entries]
• Appropriateness/Revelance• Is the website relevant to your topic? Why, or why not? [don’t choose
‘just a website’ about your topic. Find a specific article or entry pertaining to your topic]
ORGANIZATIONS = OBJECTIVITY?
Animal Rights www.peta.org
• Organizations present specific perspectives on issues they represent
• Language Use [emotional versus factual]
EMOTIONAL APPEAL• Organizational site:• Weighted language• Biased perspective
Example of emotional appeal and weighted language from www.peta.org
ADVOCACY WITHOUT STRONG EMOTIONAL APPEAL
Sometimes advocacy sites do not feature weighted language.You must still evaluate the information on advocacy websites carefully
www.englishfirst.org
BIASED PERSPECTIVE [EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH CAUSE]
www.occupywallstr.org
AUTHORITY [UNIQUE TO WEB – CELEBRITIES AND CAUSES]
Celebrity endorsementwww.peta.org www.water.org
AUTHORITY IS OFTEN MORE DEFINED IN PUBLISHED SOURCES
Writer• Editor• Board Audience
Writer Audience
Published Sources
Web Resources:
• Website author
• Website Publisher
• No one!
VALUE OF ORGANIZATIONAL WEBSITES
• Sometimes questions existing information [even factual] • Presents alternative perspectives on topics• Examines conflicting/opposing viewpoints on topics
EXAMPLES
• Cigarette smoking: although an issue before websites, 30 years ago official government sources supported smoking as a non harmful, or neutral activity [supported by cigarette manufacturers]
• Food safety/GMOs: although government websites maintain the safety of GMOs, independent websites may question this stance
CorporationsGovernment
Public
Where advocacy meets conflicting motives
ACADEMIC/NONACADEMIC?
Sources for scholarly information include govt and educational websites:
ACCURACY
Is this information found and verified in other sources?
USDA
PETA
APPROPRIATENESS, RELEVANCY
• How relevant is the information to your topic?
• How would you use www.occupywallst.org in a research paper?
• How does this compare to other sources of verified information: books, reference sources,
reports
CURRENCY
Look at bottom for date. This usually indicates last updated version of site.
LIST OF WEBSITES FOR EXERCISE
• Government• www.whitehouse.gov• www.state.gov• www.cdc.gov• http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/dcdc/pages/default.aspx
• Organizational• www.occupywallst.org • www.peta.org• http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/• http://water.org/• www.englishfirst.org• www.nra.org