Evaluating the Internet
March 4th, 2007
Whenever we visit a website to look for information, these are the questions we need to consider:
How objective (unbiased) is the author’s work?
What are the author’s qualifications to write on this topic?
How accurate is the author’s work?
What web pages link to this author’s work?
Can you contact someone with expertise in the area to validate the opinions or conclusions expressed in the document?
What is the publisher’s reputation for printing resources on this topic?
How recent is the author’s work?
Does external evidence support the author’s work?
What web sites does the author link to from this page?
What information on the topic is available from traditional sources such as newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias or library resources on the web?
I have included 2 online exercises to give you practice and hopefully develop your understanding and skill in evaluating websites and the information they contain.
Exercise 1
Go here to find out how to evaluate web sites.
You can choose either the site on William Shakespeare or the Air Cars.
Comment on what you found out. For example:
a) your thoughts on the criteria to evaluate the sites – what did it make you think or feel about the information you were reading?;
b) you could write about what you know now that you did not know before; how you can use this knowledge to help you in future research;
c) the most helpful thing you found out, the most interesting etc.
Exeecise 2 (Pair work)
Now that you have gained some understanding on evaluating digital or web based information, its time to put it to use.
Find or get a partner. (when you make comments, please list both your names!)
Test your evaluation skills here and either try the sites on the stick insects or the tree octopus.
Commment on what you found out about evaluating websites based on the criteria given.
What have you learned or gained?
How will it change the way you search for and treat information or web sites on the internet?
Which is the most difficult criterion to work with? Why?
Which is the easiest? Why?
What would you like to learn more about? Why?
Leave a Reply
See also:
- Any QUESTIONS??? (August 14th, 2007)
- Pictures speak a 1000 words (July 28th, 2007)
- QUOTES (July 2nd, 2007)
- All Summer in A Day – Venus (June 6th, 2007)
- IDIOMS are EVERYWHERE! (April 10th, 2007)
March 4th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
a) The criteria makes us really evaluate and scrutinise the site and we found out that the information we were reading was not very good.
b) We did not know that we had to satisfy so many criterias to get a good site.
c) The most interesting thing was to know the criteria that we need to satisfy to get a good site.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
The one about the stick insect was easier… On a link on the page, where the author was supposed to be answering questions people asked, this question was: Why is it that everybody you mentioned on the website is dead, including yourself? !!!!! :O And he answered: I really don’t know.
And, when we submitted our answers, the wizard said that the author only claimed to be a musician! :O
Our score is 7/8
The other one about the tree octopus was terrible! WE GOT 5/8.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Some of the websites didn’t have some of the criteria, so we tossed them. Most of the sites
were rubbish… The worst was the Tadoos one. Some of the sites were real although the golf
one was kind of strange since they wrote 2 whole paragraphs on what copyright was. That was
confusing.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Not all websites can be trusted.
We will now browse sites that meet the criterion.
Evidence, as some sites like the tree octopus gives a lot of evidence but they are not true.
Date, as it is easily found on the websites.
We would like to learn more about other ways to determine that a website is reliable as we have to do a lot of research and we would like to get reliable information easily and quickly.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
We can’t see the right side of the comments text box so pls excuse the spaces.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
The criteria was detailed and made us find that the websites that seemed quite valid were
actually false and was very very very ridiculous. Some of the information was hard to get,
like the stick insect. I could not find many of the criterias, like the publishers name or
information.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
first exercise:
shakespeare 4/8 on first try
air cars 6/8 on first try
a)it was rather hard at first but as we read on, we began to understand more of what they were saying and our understanding of the site increased.
b)don’t trust what all you see and people have bad grammar
c)the easiest part was deciding if the site could be trusted
seond exercise, octopus thingy. first try 8/8
EASY
March 4th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
golf: first try 7/8, second try 8/8
March 4th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
yawn…. tadoo is a joke
8/8 
that stick insect 4/8 first try and then 
8/8 for second try! whoppee! now nothing to do. ahhh
March 4th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
a)For the first one on William Shakespeare we got only 5/8 which was our best score. It
was rather hard and complicated. We had to search every corner of the website to find out
the truth about that site.
b)Now we know most of the eight criteria and would be able to decide whether to toss or
use a website. After all those tries during the exercises and finally realise the act of
judging a site.
c)The most interesting thing for us is to think about whether the website fits the
criteria. It got easier along the way.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
first exercise:
shakespeare 5/8
second exercise:
tree octopus 7/8
for the first exercise, there were many grammar mistakes in the webpage
and the information was not reliable as we had doubts about the authencity of the author
and the fact that he is a PhD holder.
for the second exercise, it did not link to any scientific tree octopus websites,
and it was biased towards saving the tree octopi.
further more, the author was not named and there were no references or credits.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
For Tadoo, we scored 8/8 and for Golf: 5/8
March 4th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
We have learnt how to evaluate websites on their credibilty. This will greatly help us on our prject work and we can find out if the site is total hoax or it is woven around a grain of truth and is mostly fact and can be trusted, not a joke.
Next time, we will choose our websites where we will gather data based on the critieria stated in the exercise, so we will have less trouble sieving out the sites that have proper information.
The hardest criteria to work with was the one on accuracy as we had to look through the whole site to confirm that the information is true.
The easiest criteria to work with was on how recent the website is. You just had to go to the bottom of the site and see when it was copyrighted.
I want to learn more about this as it is very interesting and i want to be able to identify which sites are hoaxes more quickly.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
for the tree octopus we got 5/8 and for the stick insects we got 6/8
March 4th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Shakespeare-6/8
Air Cars-7/8
Kimberley:The Romeo and Juliet website was totally fake. Some of the things they said were
not even accurate. That author in the funny hat seemed totally out of character for
someone writing about shakespeare and the link to the St Kitt’s tourism website was
irrelevant. So was the ‘about the author’ hat thing.
Melissa: I think so too. The Romeo and Juliet site was very untrue. The author can write
whatever he likes. We don’t even know if he even has a PhD.
Tree octopus-8/8
Melissa: It was so laughable, untrue and stupid. Whenever did a TREE octopus come into
existence?
Kimberley: we were laughing like mad when we saw the tree octopus site. I mean, using
technology nowadays, anyone can just paste an octopus picture onto a tree (picture). The
hoax websites put if colourfully and true: I quote:
Georgia in Perth WA
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 | 07:44 PM
OMG u guys, you would haf 2 b seriously disturbed if u believed in this site, seriously.
i mean, come on – Greenpeas?? Omg i am NOT stupid and i absolutely do NOT believe in this
site!! it’s sooooooo stupid!!
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii…
Member
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 | 03:10 AM
Nice to have your input, Georgia.
In English would’ve been nice.
( I agree with both.)
A more professional view:
Aside from the obviousness of this hoax, there are a few who believe it to be fact,
so I’ll offer some facts.
The pressure in the arteries and vanes of an octopus is very high in order to resist the
high pressures of the deep sea. Out of water, an octopus would suffer extream internal
bleeding. Never would it get an opportunity to adapt to land.
The amrs of an octopus can not be adapted for swinging. They are much thinner with no
bone and much less muscle than land animals, especially those who swing in trees.
The arms are designed to grab prey, which, underwater, would be weightless.
The arms would never be able support the weight of its body on land.
Posted by Dr. Goldwise on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 06:47 PM
March 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
It is quite tough.
I got most of it wrong. Maybe it is because I do not know what use it is and what lose it
means.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Romeo and Juliet- 8 matches(Exactly the same as the wizard)
I felt that the name and publisher is not important at all. Anyone can write something
and say that he/she has this and that qualifications. However, how will you know how true
this statement is? It is also very easy to say that the publisher you use is the best, but
your information might not be the best of all. Even if you put your stuff in a trustable
website, it is still what you write that matters. If it is biased, the information is
still not reliable, no matter of your qualifications or publisher.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
It was hard to find if the sources and places stated existed or not as we did
not have enough time to search ALL the links.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I got 30/32 for all 4.
I feel that it is difficult to find some of the criteria, such as the date and publisher.
Some of the websites are giveaway hoaxes, such as the octopus one. If you click sightings, thyey
they show you a toy. A toy! Most of the facts are fake too as there is no such thing as a
tree octopus and they made it up.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
They are all HOAXES!!! IN google search hoaxes and all the websites here are FOUND!!!
March 4th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
i got only 2 of them will 8 correct matches. (: that is the TREE OCTOPUS and the TADOO. yay. also, some of them required guesswork as we did not have sufficient time to source for links and stuff to get evidence to decide whether to use or lose the website.
(:(:
March 4th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
For Exercise 1
Darren: 6/8
Gary: 5/8
For exercise 2
We scored 8/8 as the website was totally fake. The links were ridiculous and have
absolutely nothing to do with tree octopuses which DO NOT exist and look like TOYS!!!
According to Comment 15, octopuses will never survive on land as their limbs are not
suited for doing so.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I got 29/32 for the exercises.I learn that there are some websites
that are hoaxes that we can trust, so we cannot trust everything
that is written there.Some of the things are mainly made up
entirely.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:29 am
I think the tree octopus website is so totally fake… One link they had on the website that was ’supposed’ to relate to the ‘tree octopus’ had a description and it was something about people stuffing pumpkin pies on Halloween…
March 5th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Romeo and Juliet- 8/8 matches
The Air Car- 8/8 matches
I want to correct my first statement that the author and publisher does not have any influence on the credibility of the website. It does. However, it is still true that anyone can say they have got a PHD. Who will know how true that is? The person must have the evidence of his/her qualifications. Anyway, what I mean is that the qualifications does not really matter so much.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Romeo and Juliet- 8/8 matches
The Air Car- 8/8 matches
I want to correct my first statement that the author and publisher do not have any influence on the credibility of the website. It does. However, it is still true that anyone can say they have got a PHD. Who will know how true that is? The person must have the evidence of his/her qualifications. Anyway, what I mean is that the qualifications of the writer do not really matter so much.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Oops! I didn’t know that my comment went on the blog at first. Sorry about that!
The Pacific Northwest Tree Octupus- 8/8 matches
Tadoos- 8/8 matches
Golf cross- 8/8 matches
The British Stick Insect- 8/8 matches
I had some trouble with the Brtish Stick Insect one. I had to check out the names of the stick insect to confirm if the name the website used is correct. However, the places were imaginary.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:54 am
i felt that it was quite very difficult to check whether the information was reliable or not, as the ‘wizard’ said that there were some spelling (and grammar) errors, so if one were skimming through, which i was doing, i might not be able to locate and see that there are these errors…
March 7th, 2007 at 4:33 am
The Pacific Northwest Tree Octupus- 8/8 matches
Tadoos- 8/8 matches
Golf cross- 8/8 matches
The British Stick Insect- 8/8 matches
Romeo and Juliet- 6/8
The Air Car- 6/8
I had some problems with the Romeo and Juliet one, but it was very clear that the website had many untrue stuff. Like what melissa said, anyone can claim to be have a PhD, but who knows if it is true?
March 9th, 2007 at 7:40 am
If you go to the Q & A section of the British Stick Insect Museum website, the last question is, “One more thing – why is it that everyone you’ve mentioned on this website is dead, yourself included?” and the answer is, “I really have no idea”. Also, the ‘recipes’ section of the website is totally ridiculous. One section on the main page tells about how ‘The famous illustration below is taken from the seminal 1892 work On The Morphology And Anatomy of Phasmids by the great Victorian naturalist Cpt D C Wallsdon (1863? – 1897/8). It shows without any need for his eloquent text the major differences between the sexes of the Stick Insects.’, showing one male and one female ’stick insect’ each, and the two pictures:
1. are exactly alike.
2. show blurry images of things that look like brown coloured crayon drawings.
Finally, the section below it says, “As any Stick Insect owner knows, Phasmids are very active at night, using the cover of darkness to seek out and consume large quantities of privet leaves. The following photograph, taken with some kind of special night-time camera by the late Cdr James Szebinsky of NASA in 1982, clearly shows a young stick insect foraging for food at well past midnight.” and below it is
an extremely unclear image showing another suspiciously crayon drawing-like picture, except it has a black background to give the impression of nighttime.
From all this, it is easy to conclude that the British Stink Insect Museum websiteis a total hoax.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:51 am
The website on Romeo and Juliet did not seem to be reliable. For the one on the tree octopus, I was wondering if there was really such a thing. It seems kind of credulous for me…an octopus on a tree! Like what Kimberley and Melissa said, it is possible that the picture of the octopus had been superimposed on the tree! Also, the “links to” did not even seem related to tree octopuses. ( one was on green peas and another on pumpkins )
Before having this lesson and learning about the different criteria that we should use to determine if a website and the information on it are reliable, I used to think so if the author was an organization or had a PhD. However, it is until now that I have realised that that is absolutely not true! Anyone can fake a PhD ( like what Kimberley and Melissa stated ) and the information coule be untrue. Now, I have learnt to determine the reliability of the information on the website using criteria such as the “links to” and “links from”, the date of which the website was last updated and many more. These are definitely useful tools which I think will come in handy in future projects/work/research!