Library - 5 Criteria for Evaluating Web Pages

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Accuracy

Why it's important:

1. Anyone can publish anything they wish on the Web.
2. Unlike print resources, the Web does not have editors and fact-checkers.
3. No standards exist to ensure accuracy on the Web.

Check questions:

• Is the information reliable?
• Is there an editor?

Examples:

Dog Island

Inaccuracy:  This site claims there is an island off the coast of Florida that has been designated specifically for dogs. People can send their dogs to Dog Island to "live a natural, healthy and happy life, free from the stress and hardship associated with daily life among humans." This is not a real site!
Accurate Sources:  Florida State University's Anthropology Department. Yes, there really is a Dog Island, but it is not inhabited by dogs. FSU provides us a real history of the Island. Internet fact-checkers also found that this site was indeed fake at Snopes.com. If you need further proof, the Dog Island website includes a disclaimer so we are left in no doubt that the authors of this site are simply having fun.

The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

Inaccuracies:  Another fake page!  But the point here is that people do intentionally place inaccurate information on the Web, either in jest in the case of Dog Island, or as a training tool, or for any other number of reasons. 
Accurate Sources: Bettelheim, Matthew. "Tentacled Tree Hugger Disarms Seventh Graders." Inkling Magazine. Remember to double-check a source, especially if found on the Internet. While some of the pictures of the tree octopus look convincing, there are no entries for "Tree Octopus" anywhere in the Encyclopedia Britannica or Worldbook. The above article tells us that this site is actually used as an Internet literacy training tool, although it began as a hoax.

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Authority

Why it's important:

1. Again, anyone can publish anything on the Web.
2. The author's identity may not be easy to determine.
3. The author may or may not have the proper credentials.
4. Sponsorship may not be apparent.

Check questions:

• Is the page "signed"?
• Is the author qualified? An expert?
• Is the page sponsored? By a reputable institution?
• Is there a link with more information about the author and/or sponsor?
• What is the domain? (.gov, .edu, .com, .org)
• Is there a tilde (~) in the URL?

Examples:

GigaLaw.com

Authoritative Source:  GigaLaw.com was founded by intellectual property, technology and Internet law attorney Douglas M. Isenberg to provide "legal information for Internet and technology professionals, Internet entrepreneurs and the lawyers who serve them."

Pachacuti

Non-authoritative:  This site is a History Day project and as such should not be used as resource.  You could, however, use the references to conduct your own research.

See the highlighted portions of this article on Hendersonville, North Carolina, from Wikipedia

Non-authoritative:  Sites like Wikipedia, although packaged very nicely, operate outside of any established guidelines on authority. Basically, just about anyone can contribute and edit Wikipedia articles, which can result in the distribution of incorrect information. So if the culprit was able to add this ridiculous information, what else might he have added or changed that is not so obvious? And, if you check the "last modified" information at the bottom of the page, this page was last changed FOUR DAYS before this copy was made! So this erroneous information has been in place a least that long without being corrected.

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Objectivity

Why it's important:

1. Often the true goals and objectives of the author/sponsor are not stated.
2. The Web is a virtual "soapbox," for any person or organization with an agenda.

Check questions:

• Does the information show a minimum of bias?
• Is the page designed to sway opinion?
• Can you detect political, ideological, or religious bias?
• Who is the target audience?
• Is there advertising on the page?
• Again, what is the domain? (.gov, .edu, .com, .org)

Examples:

Doctrinal Statement - Christian Identity, White Race, Christian Right, Christian Patriot, Nationalism, Conservative, Seedline

Biased:  A doctrinal statement by it's very nature is not objective.  It is a statement of belief, not fact.
Biased:  Christian Identity- Gospel of Hatred is on the opposite side of the issue, explaining why the Christian Identity Movement is wrong.
More Objective:  The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry's page about the Christian Identity Movement is one of the more Objective examples available, sticking primarily to the facts.

ProBush.com

Biased:  The title of the site is a dead giveaway. How objective will the information on this site be if the authors have a pro-Bush agenda.
Biased:  Bush Watch is not any more objective, just slanted in the other direction.
More Objective:  FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact Check examines the actual truth behind all of the politicking and postering.

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Currency

Why it's important:

1. Information may be out of date.
2. Publication and revision dates are not always provided.
3. If a date is provided it may refer to the date of original publication, the date it was first posted on the Web, or the date it was last updated.

Check questions:

• Is the page dated? With qualification? ("In place: July 1999," "Last revised: August 4, 1996")
• Is it apparent from the content? ("Buy the new Windows95!", "President Clinton commented from the Oval Office...")
• How current are the links? How some expired or moved?

Examples:

Science Daily

Current:  This site is bursting at the seams with information, and the articles on the main news page include today's date, implying the site is current. Looking at the About This Site link, we find that the site obtains information from Universities and other research organizations. The site also provides information about the editors, including their expertise and credentials.

Face-off: Netscape Navigator 9.0 vs. Firefox 2.0

Not Current:  Official support of Netscape ended March 1, 2008, with Netscape making way for the Mozilla Firefox browser. This link may remain active for some time, but is certainly not current.
More Current:  Netscape explains its decision to end support of their browser at this site: The Netscape Archive. Here, they provide download links to alternative browsers, including Firefox.

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Coverage

Why it's important:

1. Web coverage often differs from print.
2. Coverage can be difficult to determine at a glance.
3. Who is the audience? Beginners? Experts? Professionals? Consumers?, etc.
4. Is the information too simple? Too technical, or complicated?
5. Some sites are just for fun.

Check questions:

• What topics are covered?
• What does this page offer that is unique?
• Who is the target audience?
• How in-depth is the material?

Examples:

Hemmings and Hawings About Jefferson

Lack of Coverage:  Anyone looking for information on the Jefferson-Hemmings issue would be disappointed by this page.  The author only mentions the topic as a springboard for Clinton bashing.
Broader Coverage:  Frontline: jefferson's blood from PBS provides a great deal of depth and breadth on the topic.

Biography of Abraham Lincoln

Lack of Coverage:  Although this page is from an Authoritative source, the Whitehouse, and is probably Accurate, it does not provide much coverage of the topic.
Broader Coverage:  The Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project provides much more information and plenty of references to research.

5 Criteria: Accuracy  •  Authority  •  Objectivity  •  Currency  •  Coverage

Search the Internet

ACA 115 Page

Adapted from: Beck, Susan. The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: or, Why It's a Good Idea to Evaluate Web Sources. <http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html>. 22 May 2001.