The Good, the Bad, the Ugly and How to Tell the Difference

2. Authority
   • Is the page signed?
   • Are author's credentials given?
   • Who is the sponsoring agency?
             URL can provide clues: .edu, .gov, .org

   Reasons for consideration:

   • Anyone can publish anything on the Internet.
   • Internet bypasses traditional publishing steps of fact checking, peer review, editor's revisions, etc.
   • The Web has no standards for information that it carries.

   Questionable site:

   • No source is given for the information, and the author does not appear to be an authority on the subject.
     http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/6942/oldpage/cancer.htm

   Good site:

   • This information comes directly from the American Cancer Society, a reputable source.
     http://www.cancer.org
3. Objectivity
   • Purpose (to inform, persuade, sell, entertain?)
   • Any bias or hidden agenda?
   • Clues to objectivity: authority
                                    presence of ads

   Reasons for consideration:

   • Internet is often used as a soapbox.
   • Internet tends to blur distinctions between advertising, opinion, and facts.

   Questionable site:

   • The information is probably true but is likely to be biased since it comes from the subject's own personal page.
     http://hutchison.senate.gov

   Good site:
   

   • Information is provided by a non-partisan organization.
     http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0852103
4. Content
   • Accurate (authoritative source; references cited)
   • Appropriate to audience
   • Has the needed depth and breadth
   • Currency (Is the page dated?)
                Date created v. date posted v. date updated

   Reasons for consideration:

   • Remember that anyone can publish anything on the Internet.
   • Standard print indicators of content - like table of contents, preface, publication dates - are often absent on the Internet, so one must examine content directly.

   Questionable site:

   • Dates for hotel rates are outdated.
     http://www.indo.com/travel_agents/harapan/rate.html

   Good site:

   • Covers many hotels in many cities. Copyright dates at bottom of page indicate ongoing currency.
     http://www.travelocity.com
5. Ease of Use
   • Logical organization
   • Intuitive operation
   • Do you know where you are or do you get lost in the links?
   • User aids: link back to the home page
                    Site map
                   Search function for the site

   Reasons for consideration:

   • Authors do not always take the time to make their site user-friendly.
   • Web authors often emphasize what is "cool" over what is useful.
   • If a site is hard to use, it will not be used.

   Questionable site:

   • Page is simply a list of links with no apparent organization; many links only lead to other links instead of to actual information.
     http://www2.tntech.edu/history/earlymod.html

   Good site:

   • Information is organized into self-explanatory categories; page offers a site organization map, an index, and a search function for further assistance.
     http://www.state.gov/
6. Stability
   • Is the site hosted by a stable institution?
   • Is older information archived or does it disappear?
   • Is it regularly maintained?
                   No broken links
                   Regularly updated
   • Include email address of Webmaster?

   Reasons for consideration:
   

   • Web publishing is quick. It is easier to put something on the Web than to maintain it.
   • Nothing is permanent on the Internet.

   Questionable site:

   • Page is an advertising site dedicated more to online shopping than to providing stable links. Books displayed change according to the whim of advertisers.
     http://www.mrfreefree.com/freebies/free_books_literature.html

   Good site:

   • Collection is sponsored by a major university dedicated to creating and maintaining the service.
     http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/