Evaluation of Web documents How to interpret the basics
1. Accuracy of Web Documents
Who wrote the page and can you contact him or her?
What is the purpose of the document and why was it produced?
Is this person qualified to write this document?
Make sure author provides e-mail or a contact address/phone number.
Know the distinction between author and Webmaster.
2. Authority of Web Documents
Who published the document and is it separate from the "Webmaster?"
Check the domain of the document, what institution publishes this document?
Does the publisher list his or her qualifications?
What credentials are listed for the authors)?
Where is the document published? Check URL domain.
3. Objectivity of Web Documents
What goals/objectives does this page meet?
How detailed is the information?
What opinions (if any) are expressed by the author?
Determine if page is a mask for advertising; if so information might be biased.
View any Web page as you would an infommercial on television. Ask yourself: why was this
written and for whom?
4. Currency of Web Documents
When was it produced?
When was it updated?
How up-to-date are the links (if any)?
How many dead links are on the page?
Are the links current or updated regularly?
Is the information on the page outdated?
5. Coverage of the Web Documents
Are the links (if any) evaluated and do they complement the documents' themes?
Is it all images or a balance of text and images?
Is the information presented cited correctly?
If page requires special software to view the information, how much are you missing if you don't
have the software?
Is it free or is there a fee to obtain the information?
Is there an option for text only, or frames, or a suggested browser for better viewing?
Putting it all together
Accuracy. If your page lists the author and institution that published the page and provides a
way of contacting him/her and . . .
Authority. If your page lists the author credentials and its domain is preferred (.edu, .gov, .org,
or .net), and, . .
Objectivity. If your page provides accurate information with limited advertising and it is
objective in presenting the information, and . . .
Currency. If your page is current and updated regularly (as stated on the page) and the links (if
any) are also up-to-date, and . . .
Coverage. If you can view the information properly--not limited to fees, browser technology, or
software requirement, then . . .
You may have a Web page that could be of value to your research!
6 Criteria for Websites
These six criteria deal with the content of Web sites rather than the graphics or site design.
Apply these criteria when you research on the internet.
Authority reveals that the person, institution or agency responsible for a site has the
qualifications and knowledge to do so. Evaluating a web site for authority:
Authorship: It should be clear who developed the site.
Contact information should be clearly provided: e-mail address, snail mail address, phone
number, and fax number.
Credentials: the author should state qualifications, credentials, or personal background that
gives them authority to present information.
Check to see if the site supported by an organization or a commercial body
The purpose of the information presented in the site should be clear. Some sites are meant to
inform, persuade, state an opinion, entertain, or parody something or someone. Evaluating a
web site for purpose:
Does the content support the purpose of the site?
Is the information geared to a specific audience (students, scholars, general reader)?
Is the site organized and focused?
Are the outside links appropriate for the site?
Does the site evaluate the links?
Check the domain of the site. The URL may indicate its purpose.
It is difficult to assess the extent of coverage since depth in a site, through the use of links, can
be infinite. One author may claim comprehensive coverage of a topic while another may cover
just one aspect of a topic. Evaluating a web site for coverage:
Does the site claim to be selective or comprehensive?
Are the topics explored in depth?
Compare the value of the site’s information compared to other similar sites.
Do the links go to outside sites rather than its own?
Does the site provide information with no relevant outside links?
Currency of the site refers to: 1) how current the information presented is, and 2) how often the
site is updated or maintained. It is important to know when a site was created, when it was last
updated, and if all of the links are current. Evaluating a web site for currency involves finding the
date information was:
placed on the web
Then ask if:
Links are up-to-date
Links provided should be reliable. Dead links or references to sites that have moved are not
Information provided so trend related that its usefulness is limited to a certain time period?
the site been under construction for some time?
Objectivity of the site should be clear. Beware of sites that contain bias or do not admit its bias
freely. Objective sites present information with a minimum of bias. Evaluating a web site for
Is the information presented with a particular bias?
Does the information try to sway the audience?
Does site advertising conflict with the content?
Is the site trying to explain, inform, persuade, or sell something?
There are few standards to verify the accuracy of information on the web. It is the responsibility
of the reader to assess the information presented. Evaluating a web site for accuracy:
Reliability: Is the author affiliated with a known, respectable institution?
References: do statistics and other factual information receive proper references as to their
Does the reading you have already done on the subject make the information seem accurate?
Is the information comparable to other sites on the same topic?
Does the text follow basic rules of grammar, spelling and composition?
Is a bibliography or reference list included?
Why it's important:
Anyone can publish anything they wish on the Web.
Unlike print resources, the Web does not have editors and fact-checkers.
No standards exist to ensure accuracy on the Web.
Is the information reliable?
Is there an editor?
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: Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi's Gulf Base project. Yes, there really is
a Dog Island, but it is not inhabited by dogs. This site gives us some insight into what Dog Island
really is. 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. Notice the link to "The Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs," which
does not take you to a new site, but rather a new page on this site.
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 Encyclopedia. The above
article tells us that this site is actually used as an Internet literacy training tool, although it began
as a hoax.
Why it's important:
Again, anyone can publish anything on the Web.
The author's identity may not be easy to determine.
The author may or may not have the proper credentials.
Sponsorship may not be apparent.
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?
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." The site
clearly lists the author, Doug Isenberg, whose credentials can be found, as well as contact
information for his corporate sponsor, the Giga Law Firm.
Authoritative? Notice the web address. There is a tilde (~) in the URL, which may mean this is a
student or faculty member's personal site. There are sources listed at the bottom of the page, so
we could use these to conduct our own research, at the very least. In order to find out who
created this content, we must find the main page of the author. There is a link at the top of the
page, where we can find more information about David K. Jordan, the author. He is a professor
of Anthropology, and is most likely an expert on the subject of Ancient Metallurgy, according to
his credentials. Clicking on links such as "About Us" or "Contact Us" can give us information
about authors and sponsoring organizations.
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 or she 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.
See also this article on Jeremiah Smith from Wikipedia
Non-authoritative: This article states that Jeremiah Smith was born in 1759, but was somehow
elected Governor of New Hampshire in 2009. Smith also died in 2042. Does Wikipedia tell the
future? Clearly, this article has not been fact-checked.
Why it's important:
Often the true goals and objectives of the author/sponsor are not stated.
The Web is a virtual "soapbox," for any person or organization with an agenda.
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)
Right Wing News
Biased: The title of the site says it all. Also keep in mind that many of the articles on the site are
editorial in nature, another clue that this is not an objective site.
Biased: Checking the "About Us" page of many sites will often tell you whether or not a site is
biased, based on the information listed. Here, the "About" section clearly states that
"Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their
part to effect political and social change."
FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact Check
More Objective: Examines the actual truth behind all of the politicking and postering. Visiting
the "About Us" portion of any website may also give insight into the true objective of any
organization, such as FactCheck.org.
Why it's important:
Information may be out of date.
Publication and revision dates are not always provided.
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.
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? Have some expired or moved?
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
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.
Why it's important:
Web coverage often differs from print.
Coverage can be difficult to determine at a glance.
Who is the audience? Beginners? Experts? Professionals? Consumers?, etc.
Is the information too simple? Too technical, or complicated?
Some sites are just for fun.
What topics are covered?
What does this page offer that is unique?
Who is the target audience?
How in-depth is the material?
Biography of Abraham Lincoln
Lack of Coverage: Although this page is from an authoritative source, the white house, and is
probably accurate, it does not provide much coverage of the topic.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project
Broader Coverage: This site provides much more information and plenty of references to
Criteria for Evaluating Web Resources
Examples below represent particularly good or especially bad web sites for the criterion in
question. Can you tell which is which?
What is the purpose of the site or page? Look for tips in graphics and text. Web pages may be...
a hoax (see below)
What does the URL (Web address) say about the producer of the web site, and its purpose?
Growing herbs in the home garden
Who is the author?
What are his credentials?
Does he have sufficient authority to speak on the subject?
Is there any way to reach him?
Is there an organizational or corporate sponsor?
Is this page authentic, or is it a hoax?
Is there a reference list?
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of
Does the content reflect a bias?
Is the bias explicit or hidden?
Does the identity of the author or sponsor suggest a bias?
How does the bias impact the usefulness of the information?
Appropriateness & Relevance
Women and Aids
Is the content appropriate for your classroom or your assignment?
Is the reading level appropriate for your students?
Is the content appropriate for the age or developmental level of your students?
Is the content accurate, complete, well-written?
Is the content relevant to your topic or question?
Is the information on the page up-to-date?
Can you tell when the page was last updated?
Are there dead links?
Is there a difference between the date the information was created and the date the page was
Pregnant women can drink safely in moderation
Are the authors up-front about their purpose and content?
Is there a way to contact the authors?
Do the authors give credit for information used?
Is there a reference list?
A New Beginning for Life
Is the information clearly presented?
Is the text neat, legible and formatted for easy reading?
If there are graphics, do they add to the content or distract?
If there are advertisements, do they interfere with your ability to use the page?
Are the pages well organized?
Are there mistakes in spelling or word usage?
Can you get in?
Does the site load quickly?
Can you move around the site easily?
Is the site or page still there next time?
Is there a text-only alternative for the visually-impaired?