The document provides guidelines for evaluating the reliability and credibility of information found on websites. It suggests considering whether a site is backed by experts, the authors can be identified, the information is verifiable elsewhere, is up-to-date, comprehensive and objective or shows bias. Questions are posed about whether information is commercial or non-commercial and if Google and Wikipedia are acceptable sources. Criteria for "right" versus "wrong" information are established.
4. Is the website backed by experts?
Can you determine the
authors of the website?
Is the website commerical
or non-commercial?
Image: “dot com” by Thomas Hawk via Flickr under a CC-license.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
5. Is the information verifiable elsewhere?
Is the information
backed by sources?
Is the information
relevant to your topic?
Images: “IT everywhere #31” by Paul the Wine Guy via Flickr under a CC-license.
“Smack in the middle” by ogimogi via Flickr under a CC-license.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
6. Is the information up-to-date?
Does the website
present new information?
Can you tell when the
information was published?
Images: “#1 New MacBook” by Mikael Miettinen via Flickr under a CC-license.
“2009-07-09 What Day Is It?” by RG of CS-taking a bit of a break via Flickr under a CC-license.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
7. Is the information comprehensive?
Is there a clear bias
for a single viewpoint?
Is the information presented
objectively (when needed)?
Images: “Chain” by waffler via Flickr under a CC-license.
“Load or unload” by Pulpolux !!! via Flickr under a CC-license.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
8. Are Google and Wikipedia okay?
Images: “New Google Favicon High Resolution” by Tiger Pixel via Flickr under a CC-license.
“hands wikipedia aussiegall” by nojhan via Flickr under a CC-license.
Sunday, August 30, 2009