Evaluation of Internet Information

2,440 views
2,260 views

Published on

Evaluation of Internet Information requires two things at once:
1. Train your eye and your fingers to employ a series of techniques that help you quickly find what you need to know about web pages;
2. Train your mind to think critically, even suspiciously, by asking a series of questions that will help you decide how much a web page is to be trusted.( http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html)

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,440
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluation of Internet Information

  1. 1. Evaluation of Internet Information Dr. Ahmed-Refat AG Refat TU-FOM 2/2/2014 WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  2. 2. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  3. 3. Main Contents 1. Basic Concepts 2. Evaluation tools 3. Two Case studies ( application) Basic Evaluation Tool Application WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  4. 4. LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this study setting you will able to : 1. Understand why it's important to evaluate information 2. Identify the meaning and components of Information Literacy, 3. Define Pseudoscience and Grey literature 4. Distinguish between popular and scholarly articles 5. Describe the Quality Criteria and HON-Code of health information 6. Identify and apply basic criteria for evaluating information (5Ws method and the 5 quality criteria checklist) 7. Describe the types of internet sources and how to evaluate the validity of information presented in these sites WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  5. 5. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  6. 6. Main Contents of Presentation 1. Basic Concepts 2. Evaluation tools 3. Two Case studies ( application) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  7. 7. Basic Concepts  21st Century Skills  Information Literacy  Pseudoscience  Grey literature  Popular vs. scholarly articles  Propaganda  Misinformation  Disinformation, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  8. 8. Basic Concepts 21 Century Skills st WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  9. 9. 21st Century Skills  Critical thinking skills….  Problem solving skills…. Information literacy Skills.  Communication skills….  Self-direction and teamwork skills….  Social responsibility, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  10. 10. Information literacy Skills WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  11. 11. Information Literacy  Information Literacy is the ability to:  Identify what information is needed,  Understand how the information is organized,  Identify the best sources of information .  locate those sources,  Evaluate the sources critically,  and Share that information. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  12. 12. Information & Communication Technology (ICT) Skills WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  13. 13. Definition of ICT Literacy Using digital technology, communications tools, and/or networks To Access, Manage, Integrate, Evaluate, and Create information in order to function in a knowledge society. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  14. 14. Importance of Information Literacy  IL is critically important because we are surrounded by a growing ocean of information in all formats.  Not all information is created equal: some is authoritative, current, reliable, but some is biased, out of date, misleading, false.. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  15. 15. Components of ICT WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  16. 16. Five Critical Components of ICT • WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  17. 17. In 2000, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), a division of the American Library Association (ALA), released: "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education ", describing Five standards and numerous performance indicators WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  18. 18. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  19. 19. I.L Competency Standards for Higher Education The Five standards  Standard #1 = Know  Standard #2 = Access  Standard #3 = Evaluate  Standard #4 = Use  Standard #5 = Ethical / Legal WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  20. 20. Writing with Internet Sources “Harvard U.” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  21. 21. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  22. 22. Writing with Internet Sources WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  23. 23. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  24. 24. Why Evaluate Web Information ? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  25. 25. Why Evaluate Web Information ?  Anyone can put anything on the Web.  There are no uniform standards for quality for what can be put on the Web.  Most Web sites are not reviewed by experts in a subject as scholarly journal articles are. do not undergo any kind of editorial process as most books and  Most Web sites many other types of print sources do. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  26. 26. Why Evaluate Web Information ?  Lack of Guidelines  Lack of Monitoring  Immediate mobility of information  Lack of Representation  Searching for information (spiders)  Bias/Objectivity of Information WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  27. 27. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Lack of Guidelines There are no rules or standards governing the type or quality of information which a writer can put on the Internet. Web sites may contain factual information, opinions, data, ideas, propaganda, self-promotion and/or commercialism. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  28. 28. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Lack of Monitoring There are currently no laws in effect which govern the material which is placed on the Internet. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  29. 29. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Immediate mobility of information The most useful aspect of the Internet is that a person can find the most up-todate information immediately from almost anywhere in the world on almost any topic with the just the click of a mouse. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  30. 30. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Lack of Representation Although there are hundreds of millions of pages present on the Web today, these sites represent only the minority of the world's population. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  31. 31. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Searching for information With the Internet becoming more and more commercial all the time it is essential to constantly question, critique and evaluate all aspects of Internet use. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  32. 32. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Bias/Objectivity of Information Obtaining unbiased information from any media source has always been a difficult task. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  33. 33. Challenge: Marketing-Oriented Web Pages On the Web, distinctions between advertising and information can become extremely blurred Ads WEB Entertainment WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  34. 34. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Always validate or confirm information on individuals, institutions or groups, and countries that you find on the Internet. If you don't know who wrote what you read or why they wrote it, You don't know if it's reliable !!!. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  35. 35. Why Evaluate Web Information ? “61% of adults gather health information online” “Health searches impacted treatment decision” “Three-quarters of health seekers do not check the source and date of the health information they find online” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  36. 36. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  37. 37. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  38. 38. Spectrum of Web Information WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  39. 39. Spectrum of Web Information  Gray Literature  Pseudoscience  Popular articles  scholarly articles  Propaganda  Misinformation  Disinformation, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  40. 40. Grey Literature  Information produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in electronic and print formats , but which is not controlled by commercial publishing.  i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body.” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  41. 41. Characteristics of Science and Pseudoscience Science WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Pseudoscience
  42. 42. Characteristics of Science and Pseudoscience Science  Their findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peerreviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Pseudoscience  The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no prepublication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision.
  43. 43. Characteristics of Science and Pseudoscience Science  Reproducible results are demanded; experiments must be precisely described so that they can be duplicated exactly or improved upon.. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Pseudoscience  Results cannot be reproduced or verified. Studies, if any, are always so vaguely described that one can't figure out what was done or how it was done.
  44. 44. Characteristics of Science and Pseudoscience Science Pseudoscience  Failures are searched  Failures are ignored, for and studied closely, because incorrect theories can often make correct predictions by accident, but no correct theory will make incorrect predictions. excused, hidden, lied about, discounted, explained away, rationalized, forgotten, avoided at all costs. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  45. 45. Characteristics of Science and Pseudoscience Science  Does not advocate or market unproven practices or products WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Pseudoscience  Generally earns some or all of his living by selling questionable products and/or pseudoscientific services .
  46. 46. Popular And Scholarly Articles What is the difference between popular And scholarly articles? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  47. 47. Popular Articles (Magazines)  Are often written by journalists or professional writers for a general audience  Use language easily understood by general readers  Rarely give full citations for sources  Written for the general public  Tend to be shorter than journal articles WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  48. 48. Popular Articles (Magazines) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  49. 49. Scholarly Articles (Journals) Are written by and for faculty, researchers or scholars  Uses scholarly or technical language  Include full citations for sources  Are often refereed or peer reviewed  (articles are reviewed by an editor and other specialists before being accepted for publication) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  50. 50. Scholarly Articles (Journals) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  51. 51. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Propaganda Misinformation Disinformation, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  52. 52. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Propaganda Propaganda based in fact, but facts represented in such a way as to provoke a desired response. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  53. 53. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Disinformation "The dissemination of intentionally false/fabricated information, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  54. 54. Why Evaluate Web Information ? Misinformation differs from propaganda in that it always refers to something which is not true. It differs from disinformation in that it is "intention neutral": it isn't intentional, it's just wrong or mistaken. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  55. 55. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  56. 56. Main Contents of Presentation 1. Basic Concepts 2. Evaluation tools 3. Two Case studies ( application) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  57. 57. Evaluation Techniques WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  58. 58. Evaluation Techniques  Evaluating web pages skillfully requires you to do two things at once: Train your eye and your fingers to employ a series of techniques that help you quickly find what you need to know about web pages; Train your mind to think critically, even suspiciously, by asking a series of questions that will help you decide how much a web page is to be trusted. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  59. 59. Web Sites 5 Criteria Evaluation 5W Accuracy W WHO? Authority Where? When Objectivity Currency What? WHY? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Coverage
  60. 60. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  61. 61. WWW = W? W? W? W? W? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat Who What When Where Why
  62. 62. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION 1- WHO wrote the pages and are they an expert in their field?  Can you identify an author or sponsoring organization?  Is the author or sponsor well regarded in their field?  Can you contact the author or organization? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  63. 63. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION 2- WHAT is the purpose of the site?  Is this site mostly fact or opinion?  Are there links to the sponsoring page, or is this a lone individual?  Is this actually an advertisement disguised as information? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  64. 64. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION 3- WHERE does the information come from?  Does the author let the reader know where they got their information?  Does the author provide citations?  WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  65. 65. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION 4- WHEN was the site created, updated, or last worked on?  Does the website tell when it was created or last updated?  Does it matter to me when this information was posted to the Internet? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  66. 66. THE 5 W’S OF WEB SITE EVALUATION 5- WHY is the information valuable?  Is this new to me, or did I already know these facts?  Can I confirm the reliability of this information by finding similar facts elsewhere? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  67. 67. Criteria for Evaluating Web Resources WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  68. 68. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  69. 69. Basic Five Evaluation Criteria 1.Accuracy 2. Authority 3. Objectivity 4. Currency 5. Coverage WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  70. 70. 1-Accuracy -Criteria  Is the information reliable and error-free?  Can you find when was the last update?  Is there an editor or someone who verifies/checks the information?
  71. 71. 1-Accuracy -Rationale  Anyone can publish anything on the Web.  Unlike traditional print resources, Web resources rarely have editors or factcheckers.  Currently, no Web standards exist to ensure accuracy.
  72. 72. 1-Accuracy-Verify Read through/scan the Web page and consider. Ask a Reference Librarian if the information you have found can be verified elsewhere.
  73. 73. Basic Five Evaluation Criteria 1. Accuracy 2.Authority 3. Objectivity 4. Currency 5. Coverage WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  74. 74. 2- Authority -Criteria  Is the page signed?  Are the author's qualifications available?  Does s/he have expertise in this subject?  Is the author associated with an educational institution or other reputable organization?  Does the publisher or publication have a reputation for reliability?  Is contact information for the author or group available on the site?
  75. 75. 2-Authority -Rationale  It's often hard to determine a web page's authorship.  Unlike traditional print resources, Web resources rarely have editors or fact-checkers.  There are no standards for information on the web which would ensure that all information there is accurate and useful.  People create web pages for different reasons:     Personal Advocacy Commercial/Marketing Informational
  76. 76. 2-Authority -Verify  Look at the top and bottom of the web page for     clues. Use the WhoIs service to determine the page's owner. Is there a link to a main web site for the group/educational institution/ organization hosting this web page? Look at the first part of the URL for the web page. Is it .org? .edu? .gov? .net? .com? Does the author or host have a web page explaining who they are and what their mission or philosophy is? WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  77. 77. Basic Five Evaluation Criteria 1. Accuracy 2. Authority 3.Objectivity 4. Currency 5. Coverage WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  78. 78. 3- Objectivity -Criteria  Does the information show a minimum of bias?  Is the page a presentation of facts and not designed to sway opinion?  Is the page free of advertisements or sponsored links?
  79. 79. 3-Objectivity -Rationale  Frequently the goals of the sponsors/authors aren't clearly stated.  Often the web serve as a virtual "Hyde Park Corner," a soapbox.  The content of the page may be influenced by the advertiser.
  80. 80. 3-Objectivity-Verify  Read through/scan the web page and consider.  Does the author or host have a web page explaining who they are and what their mission or philosophy is?  See what other websites link to the site in question. Google's link searches is one method.  Ask a Reference Librarian if information about the author/ company/ organization is available.
  81. 81. Basic Five Evaluation Criteria 1. Accuracy 2. Authority 3. Objectivity 4.Currency 5. Coverage WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  82. 82. 4-Currency -Criteria Is the page dated? Can you find when was the last update? Are the links current and do they point to existing pages?
  83. 83. 4-Currency -Rationale  Publication or revision dates are not always provided.  Pages with broken links may not be updated regularly.  If a date is provided, it may have various meanings. For example it may indicate when the material: was first written  was first placed on the Web  was last updated 
  84. 84. 4-Currency-Verify  Read through and scan the text to see if the author attributes information/facts to a particular year. e.g. "in 1997, 35 car accidents were caused by chickens crossing the road."  Scan through the bibliography or list of references (be concerned if there isn't one!) and see how current each item is. e.g. Cool, Joe. (1975) "Current flying practices." Canine Aviation 32(3):23-40.  Look at the footer to see if the author has included a date.
  85. 85. Basic Five Evaluation Criteria 1. Accuracy 2. Authority 3. Objectivity 4. Currency 5.Coverage WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  86. 86. 5- Coverage -Criteria  Is the information even relevant to your topic?  Do you think it is useful to you?  Does this page have information that is not found elsewhere?  How in-depth is the material?
  87. 87. 5-Coverage -Rationale  Web coverage often differs from print coverage.  Frequently it's difficult to determine the extent of coverage.  Sometimes web information is justfor-fun or outright silliness. 
  88. 88. 5-Coverage-Verify  Read through/scan the web page and consider.  Ask a Reference Librarian if the information you have found can be verified elsewhere. 
  89. 89. Applications WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  90. 90. Retrieved Results !! WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  91. 91. (URL). Much like the address on an envelope, each part of a URL provides information about the Web page. http://www.wmich.edu/registrar/registration.html WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  92. 92. URL Web Address  What does the URL say about the producer of the web site, and its purpose?  .gov Government agency: www.whitehouse.gov .net Internet Service Provider: www.whitehouse.net  .Com Commercial site -Go there at your own risk.)  .edu Higher education - www.lesley.edu. .org Organization; may be charitable, religious, or a lobbying group - http://www.rtda.org. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  93. 93. http://www.whitehouse.net/ WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  94. 94. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  95. 95. www.whitehouse.com WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  96. 96. What can the URL tell you?  Read the URL carefully: Look for a personal name (e.g., jbarker or barker) following a tilde ( ~ ), a percent sign ( % ), or or the words "users," "members," or "people." WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  97. 97. URL Web Address ~ ("tilde")  Personal site http://www.members.tripod.com/~DAdams/qkbrdinf.html WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  98. 98. Personal Pages on .edu Sites WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  99. 99. What is the History of a Website? The Wayback Machine: www.archive.org allows you to browse through 30 billion web pages archived from 1996 to a few months ago.
  100. 100. Archive.Org
  101. 101. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  102. 102. Quality Criteria Based on International Organization WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  103. 103. Quality Criteria for Health related Websites A- EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES B-HON-Code WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  104. 104. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  105. 105. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 29.11.2002 COM( 2002) 667 final 2.1 Transparency of Health Related Content 2.2 Authority of Health Related Content Providers 2.3 Privacy and data protection of Health Data 2.4 Updating of Health Related Information 2.5 Accountability for Health Related Content 2.6 Accessibility in Health Related Content WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  106. 106. Transparency and Honesty  Transparency of provider of site – including name, physical address and electronic address of the person or organisation responsible for the site  Transparency of purpose and objective of the site Target audience clearly defined (further detail on purpose, multiple audience could be defined at different levels). Transparency of all sources of funding for site (grants, sponsors, advertisers, non-profit, voluntary assistance). WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  107. 107. Privacy and data protection Privacy and data protection policy and system for the processing of personal data, including processing invisible to users, to be clearly defined in accordance with community Data Protection legislation WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  108. 108. Updating of information Clear and regular updating of the site, with date of up-date clearly displayed for each page and/ or item as relevant. Regular checking of relevance of information. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  109. 109. Accountability user feedback, and appropriate oversight responsibility . Responsible partnering -all efforts should be made to ensure that partnering or linking to other websites is undertaken only with trustworthy individuals and organizations who themselves comply with relevant codes of good practice. Editorial policy -clear statement describing what procedure was used for selection of content. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  110. 110. Accessibility Accessibility -attention to guidelines on physical accessibility as well as general findability, searchability, readability, usability, etc. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  111. 111. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  112. 112. B-HON –Code Health on the Net WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  113. 113. HON-Code WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  114. 114. http://www.hon.ch/ WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  115. 115. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  116. 116. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  117. 117. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  118. 118. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  119. 119. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  120. 120. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  121. 121. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  122. 122. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  123. 123. Health On the Net code of ethics " HONcode” WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  124. 124. http://nihseniorhealth.gov/awards.html WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  125. 125. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  126. 126. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  127. 127. Types of Internet Information Sources  Web pages ….. ……. ……. …….  Wiki  Blogs  Databases  Social networking  Multimedia  Forum , group WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  128. 128. Wikis A wiki is a publishing platform on which many people can contribute new content and revise existing content. The content benefits from the collective knowledge base and the dynamic nature of the contributions. Examples: Wikipedia, WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  129. 129. To evaluate the content on a wiki  The sponsorship of the wiki. This may be explained on an "About" or similar page.  The wiki, whether academic or popular, suits your needs.  The identity of those who are able to edit or add content. If it is a select group, try to determine if they have expertise in the wiki’s topic.  Changes to the page appear reasonable. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  130. 130. Blogs A blog is a Web-based journal entry platform that can accept reader comments. Entries are usually presented in reverse chronological order. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  131. 131. To evaluate the content on a blog, look for these clues  Most blog postings focus on a discussion of issues rather than day-to-day personal or recreational activities.  Blog postings are signed by an identifiable author.  The author has expertise on the topic of the blog.  Comments on blog postings emphasize substantive discussion of the issues. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  132. 132. Social networking sites  Social networking sites are online communities in which members can interact in a number of ways.  Full‐featured communities offer the ability to share a personal profile, initiate contacts with “friends,” form groups of members with similar interests, contact group members directly, engage in discussions, share media or photos, and discover other common connections through ones’ contacts WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  133. 133. To evaluate the content on a social networking site, look for these clues:  • The identity of the source of shared information can be verified. This can be done by examining the profile page if made public, verifying the named source of the information, and so on.  • Information on the profile page of the individual, institution, company, or library can be verified.  • The individual, institution, etc. contributing information has expertise on the topic. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  134. 134. Multimedia  Multimedia encompasses non‐textual presentations such as audio, video, and Flash formats WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  135. 135. To evaluate the content in a multimedia presentation, look for these clues:  • The presentation is sponsored by a reputable institution, organization, or identified individual(s)whose expertise can be verified.  • If individuals appear or speak in a presentation, they are identified and their expertise can be checked.  • The presentation or its accompanying information includes contact information. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  136. 136. To evaluate the content in a multimedia presentation, look for these clues:  • The presentation or its accompanying information includes contact information.  • Comments that may accompany the presentation evaluate its quality (even if you don’t agree with what others have to say).  • If previously recorded, the presentation can be identified by date so that you can determine the currency of the information provided. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  137. 137. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  138. 138. Main Contents of Presentation 1. Basic Concepts 2. Evaluation tools 3. Two Case studies ( application) WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  139. 139. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  140. 140. http://www.aquasana.com.au/category/articles/ WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  141. 141. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  142. 142. http://vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  143. 143. http://www.prolifewater.com.sg/index.htm WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  144. 144. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  145. 145. WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  146. 146. Cited Sources  http://21cif.com/tools/evaluate/tip_help.html             http://21cif.com/resources/wsi/media/wsi_author.swf http://21cif.com/resources/wsi/media/wsi_publisher.swf http://www.hon.ch/home1.html (http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu http://jfmueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/infolitassessments.htm http://www.aacu.org/about/index.cfm http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles/2011/2/1/report-80-of-internet-users-seekonline-health-information http://www.lib.vt.edu/instruct/evaluate/ http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/evalcrit.html http://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluatinginformation http://education.illinois.edu/wp/credibility/index.html http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Webmasters/HON_CCE_en.htm WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat
  147. 147. Thank You ?Qs Comments !! WWW.SlideShare.net/AhmedRefat

×