The danger with websites is that anybody can publish them. Nowadays, it seems that everybody has a facebook page, myspace page, or a blog. Publishers automatically vet books and articles to a certain degree, but internet sources bypass the publisher and go straight into production. You should approach an internet source with a bit more skepticism than you do a print source. You need to be careful.
Who wrote it? -- Many websites do not list the author. Some, like Wikipedia, are open-source, and have many authors. If no author is listed, perhaps you should look at the organization that publishes the website. Does the organization seem credible? Is it a .com or .gov or .org? If the website has no author and no recognizable organization, then it probably is not a credible source.
When was it written? -- Websites, unlike print sources, do not always list the date of publication either. One of the benefits of a website is that it can be updated much quicker than a printed source, therefore, not having a date of publication is not a deal breaker. Websites, from time to time, also put down the date when the site was last updated. This is not necessarily the date the source was written, but it does give you a clue about how recent or relevant this source is.
Is the website poorly designed? -- This is not always the most accurate way to judge, but credible organizations usually have enough money to buy a web designer. If the information is presented in a non-professional or sloppy manner, chances are the organization presenting it is not very professional and/or credible.
Is there a bias? -- This is also hard to determine sometimes. One of the things to do is research the organization that hosts the site. Do they have any reason to be biased towards the topic?
Once you have determined whether or not the website is a worthy source, you can ask of it the same questions you asked of print sources.
written by Luke Rolfes |
|
|
|
