MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
Name:
Directions: In this activity, you will consider how to determine if a
website is useful. There are five (A.-.E.) sections to this activity. Please
type your responses within the document below and save. Upload the
finished assignment to the appropriate dropbox at CourseDen.
Essential Question: How do you determine if a webpage is accurate,
relevant, appropriate, comprehensive, and unbiased?
A. Brainstorm a list of criteria which you believe should be evaluated to determine
the usefulness of a webpage for research. (Type your responses in the
textboxes below.)
1. Reliability of
Information
4. Easily Navigable
/ Searchable
2. Clear Attribution
of Sources
What
makes a
Web Page
useful for
research?
3. Consistent
Availability
5. Consistent Content
(Not Often Altered)
B. Review the following websites and answer questions about each:
1. http://www.martinlutherking.org/
There’s something not quite right about this website. List any reasons you can see
why this website is not appropriate for students to use in school research. (Hint: who
is sponsoring this website?)
Answer here
Well. Aside from the fact that this site seems to be authored by some
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm
MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
individuals with a rather disturbing understanding of the history of civil
rights and a particularly hateful agenda, this is a completely innappropriate
site for students simply on the basis of the language and content on the
main page. While some of the language in question has been somewhat
redacted (f-ing, etc), it is still easily read and innappropriate for students to
read.
2. http://www.dhmo.org/
I (your instructor) am an ardent supporter of the cause to ban DHMO. Based on the
information you find on this webpage, will you join me in supporting this cause?
Why or why not? (If you dig deeply enough, you will discover why not.)
No. Dihydrogen monoxide is water. While this is a clever and amusing site
(I’ve actually seen it before), the “content veracity is not implied,” as listed on
the bottom of the website. Thus, the website’s content is not necessarily
reliable.
C. Complete the tutorial by Jennifer Sharkey of Purdue University at
http://www.lib.purdue.edu/ugrl/staff/sharkey/interneteval/index.html. Use the space
below to log your reactions as you work through each section of the online tutorial. For
each section, indicate which website you chose to evaluate (2 choices are provided for
each section), and answer the question(s) completely.
Ms. Huett-- When attempting to do this section of the assignment, I found that the
site was not available. I’ve attempted to answer the questions as best I could,
using sites that I found via Google. (If possible, I googled for a site with the same
or similar name as the one listed in the question.)
Accuracy
1. Which website are you evaluating for accuracy?
The True…Facts about Women with AIDS OR HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet
http://www.ithaca.edu/library/research/AIDSFACTS.htm -- “The True but Little
Known Facts about Women with AIDS”
2. What information in this site leads you to believe or disbelieve its accuracy?
Clearly, the information on this site is inaccurate. Many of the “facts”
given on this page are nonsensical (“vehicularly exculpatient?” what has a
lack of car accidents to do with the rate of AIDS infection among
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm
MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
women?), lacking context, and are poorly documented. While the site lists
its sources, some of them are clearly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and
misleading. For example, the claim that women who have never had a
car accident are less likely to contract AIDS comes from a (deliberate or
otherwise) misinterpretation of the title of an article on hospital aides
(“Blameless driving records…”). There also appears to be a deliberate
attempt to obfuscate with the claim that women can reduce their risk of
infection by not sharing their unwaxed dental floss with their husbands-the source is given as “John Hopkins,” which, given the context, a reader
might assume to be the hospital. However, if one examines the source,
one finds that John Hopkins is the name of an individual who has
apparently given this information in a non-medical journal, through
information he received from a third party source.
Personally, I would have thrown this site out as a viable source of
information after reading that “Dr. Juatta Leon Fueul” worked with the
“Departmnet” of Public Health and Public Interest Enrichment. I expect
that a site which contains reliable information will also make a very basic
attempt at correct orthography and grammar.
Authority
1. Which website are you evaluating for authority?
Bioethics.net : Article Topics: Cloning OR Clonaid
Clonaid -- http://www.clonaid.com/
2. Do you consider the author of the site to be an expert of the subject covered?
Why or why not?
Leaving aside the fact that human cloning is illegal-- within the United
States and throughout the international community-- I would not consider
the authors of this site to be experts on the subject of cloning. There are
several indications that this site is a scam, and is using inaccurate
information. (The claim that cloning is a good reproductive choice for
homosexuals, for example, because “they cannot have a child today that
is 100% related to them genetically but human cloning provides this
possibility for them,” is clearly biologically inaccurate.) Additionally, I see
no indication that this site is run by anyone of medical or scientific repute.
In fact, there is a disclaimer on the page saying that CLONAID is not the
name of the company, but is a project name designed to protect their
clients and employees. Granted, cloning is a delicate topic, and human
cloning even moreso, but a company that will not give its name nor its
directors is hardly a trustworth entity.
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm
MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
Objectivity
1. Which website are you evaluating for objectivity?
The Truth OR FORCES International
FORCES International -- http://www.forces.org/
2. Can you determine the real purpose of the site?
What is it and how did you determine the purpose?
FORCES appears to be a lobbying or activist group in opposition to public
ordinances and laws which prohibit or limit smoking. In particular, they are
opposed to the use of what they see as “misleading” scientific data regarding the
hazards of smoking. They present this position with an argument against
government intervention and regulation, and provide links to alternative-- and
rather questionable-- information that supports their position.
Currency
1. Which website are you evaluating for currency?
The Onion OR The New York Times
The New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com
2. Is it easy to determine the currency of the site?
What did you do to determine the currency of the site?
The New York Times is extremely easy to evaluate for currency; not only are
archived stories dated, but the current headlining stories all have the time they
were posted and the time of their last update listed directly next to the headline.
Coverage
1. Which website are you evaluating for coverage?
OncoLink OR BioImmune
OncoLink -- http://www.oncolink.com/
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm
MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
2. Do you consider the information on this site to be relevant and comprehensive?
Why or why not?
This site’s content looks to be both relevent and comprehensive. There is a
variety of information given on this site, all related to various aspects of cancer
diagnosis, treatment, research, and out patient care. The information given
appears to be well-supported and reliable, and the sources seem to be reputable
and offer a wide range of positions and opinions.
D.
Visit the following pages and briefly share your thoughts (a sentence or two) about
how you might guide your future K-12 students in determining the reliability of the
information found:
http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
http://www.weathergraphics.com/tim/fisher/
The first thing I would do would suggest that students always, always, always
check the bottom of a webpage for site information like the author, copyright date
or the last date the page was updated. Sometimes information regarding the
validity of the page can be found at the bottom of the page (see the Google April
Fools Day PigeonRank page). I would also suggest that students look for a
second, independently verifiable source to back up any information that seems
questionable. (Are there really tree octopuses? What do biologists say on the
subject? Does it make sense for octopuses to live in trees?)
E.
Write a paragraph explaining why it is important to evaluate the information found
on a Web page, include the ways to find out more about the author, the sponsoring
agency, or the information itself.
The internet is a fantastic invention-- the ability for individuals, anywhere in the
world, to share information with one another almost instantly is absolutely
amazing, and is something that we in the educational field should certainly
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm
MEDT 3401
Website Evaluation Activity
capitalize on. But simply because of the extremely accessible nature of the
internet, we need to be careful about what information we accept as valid. It is
important that we be able to source the information given on any website-- this
means that we should be able to determine who (name, title, associated
institution) wrote the information, and there should be a way of contacting the
individual if necessary. The author should also clearly give their sources, just as
one would in a traditional research paper. If sources are not easily traceable,
then the information is questionable.
*This lesson is adapted from Critical Evaluation of a Web Page Lesson Plan: Grades 6-8, Retrieved
1/31/08 from: http://kathyschrock.net/eval/index.htm