home

=EVALUATING WEB CONTENT= (or Crap Detection 101)

The following categories and key questions for evaluating web content were developed by participants at a workshop as part of ConVerge10 An intended outcome of this workshop was to develop a tool that could be used to assess and validate the content of web pages. However, unknown to me at the time of proposing this conference session Howard Rheingold has developed a tool for Evaluating Web Pages that is complete and ready for use.

I don't think there's any need to duplicate Howard's excellent work and produce another tool. It was still a fruitful exercise to brainstorm these categories and key questions together in the workshop.

And the more important point still remains true - the skills of **critical and digital literacy** cannot be assumed. They need to be taught and students need guidelines on how to assess web content.


 * THIS IS A PUBLIC WIKI ** and the information below is a work in progress so feel free to add, amend, or comment.

// - Michael Coghlan (Nov 30th, 2010) //

** INTERNET ADDRESS/URL **

 * is the domain consistent with the content of the page?
 * Is it .com?(commercial) is it a .gov (government) or .edu (education) domain? ( .gov or .edu URLs cannot be bought.) Is it .org?(often used by non-profit organisations
 * In general, sites with .gov, .edu, and .org domains are likely to be more accurate, and less likely to be trying to sell you something
 * with .gov sites, it also helps to be aware of differences between government policy, government information and government report sites/pages.

Note: Flagfox can be useful for revealing the country where the website is hosted

** APPEARANCE/LOOK AND FEEL **

 * While what constitutes a good looking website that inspires trust and confidence can be very subjective, there are some questions you can ask about a site: **
 * Is it well designed? Has it been designed with care? Is it laid out within accepted familiar parameters? (headings, paragraphs, navigation)
 * Look around the edges of the site - is there advertising? ads thgat are consistent with the content on offer? evidence of sponsorship by a third party?

** AUTHOR **

 * Who wrote it? An individual or an organisation?
 * Are they expert in the field? Do they have any proven credentials for perusal?
 * Does the author(s)' work appear elsewhere on the web?
 * Is there an "About" section that offers more information about the individual or organisation?
 * are there contact details of the author(s) on the site?

** LANGUAGE **

 * Is it well-written? Are there obvious spelling/grammar errors? Does it use considered language that demonstrates that care and thought has been put into the writing of the content?
 * Style
 * who is the target audience?

** INFORMATION **

 * Is the info I want easy to find?
 * Are there references to other relevant and valid websites?
 * are sources of information evident? are they hyperlinked or listed as references?
 * are hyperlinks on the page for 'internal content' linking to the same domain, or pointing to some other alternative domain?
 * how current is the information being presented?
 * Is there a summary?

** DATE/CURRENCY **

 * is there a date indicating when content was created somewhere on the site?
 * Is the information presented current?
 * is there evidence that the site is actively maintained and updated as necessary?

** PURPOSE **

 * Is the site selling or promoting a product? (nearly always the case with .com sites)
 * Do they have a vested interest in promoting a certain point of view?
 * do you have to register with the site to get extended content or access to required documents?
 * Could they be collecting data for their own purposes or onselling to a third party?


 * WEB 2.0**

Can we apply the same key questions when evaluating the content of blogs, wikis and other user generated content? Or do different rules apply?

//(thoughts anyone?) tbc......//