Post-2: Web-site Evaluation
Are you sometimes overwhelmed with the amount of information on the
internet? Do you feel it necessary to understand how reliable the
information you are reading is? Do you think your students should be
made aware of the internet safety and security? If you answered "yes" to
these questions, then it would be useful for you to get acquainted with
the criteria for web-site evaluation and then practise using them
yourselves first and then teach your students how to stay safe and
secure online.
Have a look at the list of criteria for web-site evaluation created by M. Krauss and Anholt from the USA who specialise in teaching courses of ICT in the language classroom for Ts around the world. Then use them to evaluate the resources listed after these criteria:
Answer the following questions "yes" or "no". If you have more than 9 "Yes" answers, you can use resource you have found or were recommended to use.
OBJECTIVITY/ADVOCACY:
Some articles are written to report information objectively (without the author’s opinion). Other articles are written to “advocate” the author’s point of view, either for or against an issue. It is okay to use advocacy articles, but you also need to find an equal number of articles from the other side’s point of view.
1.___Is it clear to you that this article is either objective reporting or an advocacy article?
Which is it? (check one) ___objective ___advocacy
2.___Is more than one viewpoint expressed?
3.___Can you identify the name of the organization that put up this Web site?
Which organization is sponsoring it?
AUTHORITY:
1. ___Do you know who wrote the information on this page?
2. ___Is there a link to contact the author?
3. ___ Is there information to show that the author is knowledgeable or an expert?
Check the URL (Web address). A tilde (~) means the page is a personal one, not part of an organization’s official Web site. Try putting the author’s name into Google. See what else s/he has written. You can also put the URL into Google. This will show you which sites link to the page you found.
ACCURACY
1. ___ Can you tell where the author got his/her information? Are there links to the sources?
2. ___ Is the information typed correctly, with correct grammar and spelling?
CURRENCY:
It is important to have up-to-date information. Some Web sites have old information that is still useful, but if the actual Web site is not updated, you may doubt the information which is presented.
1. ___Can you find the date that this article was originally written?
Date:
2. ___Can you find the date that this article was put on the Web?
Date:
3. ___Can you find the date that this article was revised?
4. ___Click on three links in the text (if there are links in the text). Are all the links working?
COVERAGE:
Some Web sites are collections of links to other Web sites. They are useful, but they not considered a “source” of information for your paper.
1. ___Does this Web site contain original information?
2. ___Does this article contain information that will help you with your paper?
Another form for web-site evaluation is located at http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/EvalForm.pdf
First, apply these criteria to the analysis of two websites listed below
1. Mankato, Minnesota (http://www.mankato-mn.gov/)
2. Mankato, Minnesota (http://descy.50megs.com/mankato/Mankato.html)
In the thread following this post write your evaluation of these sites and see what your peers have to say about it.
Next, visit one of the sites listed below and post a comment with its evaluation: is it credible or not? How do you know?
Please note that you need to choose 1 web-site from those listed below
* Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)
* Facts About from Idiotica (http://www.idiotica.com/cranium/encyclopedia/): password protected, surrently unavailable
* Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) (http://www.dhmo.org/)?
* Museum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/)
* Did the Holocaust happen? (http://prezi.com/pqra3zylidyy/holocaust-did-not-happen/)
* Physics and Star Trek (http://www.physicsguy.com/physandtrek/)
* The Faked Apollo Landings (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)
(Author: Jill Haslam - Email jhaslam@dsdmail.net)
At home go over the following materials:
Next, read A short introduction to the study of Holocaust revisionism, by Arthur R. Butz (https://bit.ly/2yX0ApC ) and then the article by Alan November "Teaching Zack to Think" (https://bit.ly/2Q1oOX2) which serves as an excellent illustration of why it is important to analyze the credibility of information you find on the web. In your post, explain whether it is important to evaluate the quality of information on the internet. Why?
Post your comment in this thread.
Have a look at the list of criteria for web-site evaluation created by M. Krauss and Anholt from the USA who specialise in teaching courses of ICT in the language classroom for Ts around the world. Then use them to evaluate the resources listed after these criteria:
Answer the following questions "yes" or "no". If you have more than 9 "Yes" answers, you can use resource you have found or were recommended to use.
OBJECTIVITY/ADVOCACY:
Some articles are written to report information objectively (without the author’s opinion). Other articles are written to “advocate” the author’s point of view, either for or against an issue. It is okay to use advocacy articles, but you also need to find an equal number of articles from the other side’s point of view.
1.___Is it clear to you that this article is either objective reporting or an advocacy article?
Which is it? (check one) ___objective ___advocacy
2.___Is more than one viewpoint expressed?
3.___Can you identify the name of the organization that put up this Web site?
Which organization is sponsoring it?
AUTHORITY:
1. ___Do you know who wrote the information on this page?
2. ___Is there a link to contact the author?
3. ___ Is there information to show that the author is knowledgeable or an expert?
Check the URL (Web address). A tilde (~) means the page is a personal one, not part of an organization’s official Web site. Try putting the author’s name into Google. See what else s/he has written. You can also put the URL into Google. This will show you which sites link to the page you found.
ACCURACY
1. ___ Can you tell where the author got his/her information? Are there links to the sources?
2. ___ Is the information typed correctly, with correct grammar and spelling?
CURRENCY:
It is important to have up-to-date information. Some Web sites have old information that is still useful, but if the actual Web site is not updated, you may doubt the information which is presented.
1. ___Can you find the date that this article was originally written?
Date:
2. ___Can you find the date that this article was put on the Web?
Date:
3. ___Can you find the date that this article was revised?
4. ___Click on three links in the text (if there are links in the text). Are all the links working?
COVERAGE:
Some Web sites are collections of links to other Web sites. They are useful, but they not considered a “source” of information for your paper.
1. ___Does this Web site contain original information?
2. ___Does this article contain information that will help you with your paper?
Another form for web-site evaluation is located at http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/EvalForm.pdf
First, apply these criteria to the analysis of two websites listed below
1. Mankato, Minnesota (http://www.mankato-mn.gov/)
2. Mankato, Minnesota (http://descy.50megs.com/mankato/Mankato.html)
In the thread following this post write your evaluation of these sites and see what your peers have to say about it.
Next, visit one of the sites listed below and post a comment with its evaluation: is it credible or not? How do you know?
Please note that you need to choose 1 web-site from those listed below
* Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)
* Facts About from Idiotica (http://www.idiotica.com/cranium/encyclopedia/): password protected, surrently unavailable
* Should we ban dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) (http://www.dhmo.org/)?
* Museum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/)
* Did the Holocaust happen? (http://prezi.com/pqra3zylidyy/holocaust-did-not-happen/)
* Physics and Star Trek (http://www.physicsguy.com/physandtrek/)
* The Faked Apollo Landings (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)
(Author: Jill Haslam - Email jhaslam@dsdmail.net)
At home go over the following materials:
Next, read A short introduction to the study of Holocaust revisionism, by Arthur R. Butz (https://bit.ly/2yX0ApC ) and then the article by Alan November "Teaching Zack to Think" (https://bit.ly/2Q1oOX2) which serves as an excellent illustration of why it is important to analyze the credibility of information you find on the web. In your post, explain whether it is important to evaluate the quality of information on the internet. Why?
Post your comment in this thread.
The 1st Mancato website scored 9 points, while the 2nd scored only 3. I conclude that only the first website can be used as a source of information.
ReplyDeleteThe second site is clearly inferior to the first one, scoring only 3 points. The other one got a whopping score of 9 points, which means it can be used as a source of information.
ReplyDeleteThe first website is quite a reliable source of information, since ir scored 9 points. As for the second one, I won`t advise to use it, since it has a bad structure and it`s really difficult to navigate there and it scored only 4 points.
ReplyDeleteOBJECTIVITY/ADVOCACY:
ReplyDelete1.___Is it clear to you that this article is either objective reporting or an advocacy article?
The first web-site seems to be more objective, although in the "About Mankato Section" mostly positive facts are represented ("...Mankato's economic growth leads Minnesota and among the top in the nation") (A/O). The second one contains advocacy information, it is subjective ("Mankato, Minnesota is truly a wonderland") (A).
2.___Is more than one viewpoint expressed?
It seems to me that both web-sites express only one viewpoint (Yes).
3.___Can you identify the name of the organization that put up this Web site?
Which organization is sponsoring it?
In both cases, we can identify the name of person/organization (+).
AUTHORITY:
1. ___Do you know who wrote the information on this page?
In the first case, there is no information about the authors of the articles (-). The second werbsite seems to be writen by one person (+).
2. ___Is there a link to contact the author?
In the first case, you can contact the city administration, but not the authors (-). In the second case, there is a link to the author, but it does not work (-).
3. ___ Is there information to show that the author is knowledgeable or an expert?
No.
ACCURACY
1. ___ Can you tell where the author got his/her information? Are there links to the sources?
In the first case, there are some references to other sources (+/-). On the second website, there are no references (-).
2. ___ Is the information typed correctly, with correct grammar and spelling?
1) Yes 2) Yes, but there are to many exclamation signs (+/-).
CURRENCY:
1. ___Can you find the date that this article was originally written?
1) No 2) No
2. ___Can you find the date that this article was put on the Web?
1) Only in news section (+/-) 2) No
3. ___Can you find the date that this article was revised?
1) No 2) No
4. ___Click on three links in the text (if there are links in the text). Are all the links working?
1) Yes 2) Not all of them (-)
COVERAGE:
1. ___Does this Web site contain original information?
It is not always posible to say if the information is original; I cannot find the original sources.
2. ___Does this article contain information that will help you with your paper?
No
It is hard for me to estimate how many points each website scored, but the first one is certainly more reliable.
DeleteThe tinfoil hat site obviously does not have any credibility at all. It does not have links to credible sources, no authors, no dates, no links. The last news was from 2008, and the overall design suggests low qualifications of its authors
ReplyDeleteThe first website (https://www.mankatomn.gov/) has shown the highest degree of reliance: 9 points out of 14. While the second one (http://descy.50megs.com/mankato/mankato.html) scored 4 points.
ReplyDeletehttps://ramrainheer.blogspot.com/2018/10/web-site-evaluation.html
ReplyDeleteThe first website (https://www.mankatomn.gov/) scored 9 points out of 14. The second one (http://descy.50megs.com/mankato/mankato.html) scored 4 points.
ReplyDeleteThe first website is considered to be more reliable because it scored 7 points while the score of the second one is only 3.
ReplyDeleteThe Apollo landings hoax site is clearly not suitable for any scientific work. It scored a miserable 3 points. The information presented lacks credibility and overall professionalism. There's a link that id supposed to take you to an updated version of the article, but it actually leads you to a scam.
ReplyDeleteThe first website scored 7 points, while the second one scored only 3. It's obvious that the first one is more reliable, although its score is lower than 9. It has links to some reliable resources, dates of publication and a verz clear interface.
ReplyDeleteHere are the links to my pages :
ReplyDelete1) https://goo.gl/RZAw4d
2) https://goo.gl/QCMeia
I consider the first site more reliable since it scores 9 points, while the second scores only 3.
ReplyDeletehttps://polinagordeeva.blogspot.com/2018/10/web-site-evaluation-normal-0-false.html
ReplyDeleteThe first website has scored 9 points, while the second website has scored only 3 points. In conclusion I can say that the first website is more reliable than the second one.
ReplyDeletehttps://amelnikova.blogspot.com/2018/10/normal-0-false-false-false-ru-x-none-x.html
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't rely on the website devoted to the DMRD (http://www.dhmo.org/) as far as it scored only 4 points. Even though it has been recently updated, there is no other actual information supported by dates, names of authors, etc. There are links but the sources they lead to look quite suspicious.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5642620577031557581#editor/target=post;postID=5977796747472101626;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname
ReplyDeleteMuseum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/)
ReplyDeleteThis website scored only 4 points because the topic is related to hoax, so it can not be reliable. In the articles there is only one viewpoint expressed, also there are no names of authors or dates of revising. The opinion of author is very subjective and there is no information which shows that the author is an expert at his/her area. But, there are links to other sources which can be useful. And, of course, information from this article will not help me with my course paper.
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/)
ReplyDeletehttps://ramrainheer.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=APq4FmCKtKPP-pZJ0reCilHTizBVYySCaHMIQbhe8HU-JoTEqnJF0NlRWEdwTGBALxMabFombIwMfylO9P6WB995Xw34AdRdKBTtXKftUOcdvGjmNNLFPtU-AL3uQjWxuemDX-ukhMlR&postId=2615850774264764427&type=POST
I looked through the web-site about Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/). It is certainly not a reliable source. Although here are references to other sources, they look outdated and not very reliable. Moreover, it is stated on this web-site that content veracity is not implied.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that this web-site was made as a joke. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) is actually water, and the appeal to banning it looks like an utter absurdity.
The first website seems to be reliable since it scored 9 points. The second one, which scored only 3 points, cannot be considered reliable.
ReplyDeletePlease find the answer to question "Why is it important to evaluate the quality of information on the internet?" in my blog. (https://dashalaricheva.blogspot.com/2018/11/post-2-web-site-evaluation.html#more)