This document provides criteria for evaluating websites, including considering the website suffix (.edu, .gov, .org, .com), URL suffix, objectivity, advocacy, emotional appeals, authority, authorship, currency, and appropriateness. Website suffixes can provide clues to the purpose and potential biases of a site. Advocacy sites may use emotional language but still require careful evaluation. Government and academic sites will likely contain more objective facts and statistics. Currency and appropriateness to the research topic should also be assessed when evaluating websites.
1. E V A L U A T I O N O F WE B S I T E S
WEBSITE CRITERIA
2. SITE SUFFIX
• Government site?
• www.whitehouse.gov www.state.gov
• Organizational?
• http://www.peta.org/ www.occupywallst.o
rg
• A dotcom site?
• www.disney.com www.microsoft.com
3. URL SUFFIX AND WEBSITE PURPOSE
• What does the URL says about the purpose of the web
site?
• .edu = academic, colleges/universities:
Examples: www.ucla.edu www.harvard.edu
www.csulb.edu www.calstate.edu
• .gov = U.S. government produced:
Examples: www.whitehouse.gov www.ca.gov
www.usda.gov www.ed.gov
4. Org sites are usually organizational sites for charities, non-profit
organizations and sometimes political advocacy groups:
• .org = organization, usually charitable, religious or a lobbying
group:
Examples: www.peta.org www.occupywallst.org
http://englishfirst.org/d/ http://www.rootsofchange.org/
• .com = business/marketing, e-commerce
•
Other URLs
• .mil = military site
.net = network
5. WEBSITE CRITERIA
• Objectivity
• Advocacy [.org and organizational sites]
• Emotional appeals
• Factual/Neutral
• Government
• educational
• Authority
• Authorship
• Sponsor/organization
• Appropriateness/revelance
• Is the website relevant to your topic
• Currency
• Updated regularly
• Presents updated perspective on topic
8. EMOTIONAL APPEAL
• Advocacy sites often have emotional appeal
through weighted language
Examples of
emotional
appeal and
weighted
language from
www.peta.org
9. ADVOCACY WITHOUT STRONG
EMOTIONAL APPEAL
Or, sometimes they do not! You must still evaluate the information
on advocacy websites carefully
15. MAY BE ADVOCACY BUT NOT .ORG
Alternative news source
.com suffix
still presents
advocacy
perspective
16. AUTHORITY IS OFTEN MORE DEFINED
IN PUBLISHED SOURCES
Writer
• Editor
• Board Audience
Writer Audience
Published Sources
Web Resources:
• Website
author
• Website
Publisher
• Or it can
be -- No
one!
17. VALUE OF ADVOCACY WEBSITES
Reasons to use advocacy websites:
• Questions existing information [even
factual]
• Presents alternative perspectives on
topics
• Examines conflicting/opposing
viewpoints on topics
18. EXAMPLES
• Cigarette smoking: although an issue before
websites, 20 years ago official government sources
supported smoking as a non harmful, or neutral
activity [supported by cigarette manufacturers]
• Food safety/GMOs: although government
websites maintain the safety of GMOs, independent
websites may question this stance
CorporationsGovernment
Public
Where advocacy meets
conflicting motives
21. APPROPRIATENESS, RELEVANCY
• How relevant is the information to your topic?
• How would you use www.occupywallst.org in a
research paper?
• How does this compare to other sources of verified
information: books, reference sources, reports