Critical Evaluation of Sources: Web and Articles

All results should be evaluated with a critical eye.  The web is a confusing and crazy place.  Since anyone can post anything at any time, the information is ever changing and can be misleading, false, bogus, designed to provoke, or only minimally useful.  Be critical.  Just as you would consider the credentials of an author or publisher of a written source before accepting information, you must evaluate the source of information on the Internet.  Who created the site?  Is it updated?  Is it simply a hoax?  Anyone with technical skills and Internet access is able to put information on the Internet. 

            Below are some methods for deciding if the information discovered is really going to be useful, valuable, or worthy. 

Authority of Web Resources

• Often difficult to determine authorship
• If author’s name is listed, his/her qualifications frequently absent
• Publisher’s responsibility often not indicated

Currency of Web Resources

• Dates not always included on Web pages
• If included, a date may have various meanings:
• date the information was first written
• date the information was placed on the Web
• date the information was last revised

Coverage of Web Resources

• Web coverage may differ from print coverage
• Often hard to determine extent of Web coverage

Objectivity of Web Resources

• Goals/aims of persons or groups presenting materials is often not clearly stated
• Web often functions as a “virtual soapbox”

Accuracy of Web Resources

• Almost anyone can publish on the Web
• Many Web resources not verified by editors and/or fact checkers

USEFUL LINKS FOR EVALUATING WEB SITES

Checklist for Evaluation - from VA Tech - http://www.lib.vt.edu/instruct/evaluate/

A Set of Questions from Purdue -   http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/1272/329981/evaluatingsources.pdf

What defines Authority? - http://www.kyvl.org/html/tutorial/research/authority.shtml

Scholarly vs Popular at Purdue -   http://guides.lib.purdue.edu/scholarly-sources-and-peer-review

Fun video about Scholarly sources - https://youtu.be/K--lAfBgPNo?list=PLEDEF970848A93F95

Evaluating Sources: Techniques to Apply & Questions to Ask -   http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html

Chart from Berkeley -  http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/instruct/guides/evaluation.html

----------------------------------------------

Evaluating Quality on the Net -      http://www.hopetillman.com/findqual.html

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -      http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html

Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility -  http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html

Virtual Salt - Evaluation criteria – CARS checklist  -  http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm

JHU has great info on this:  http://guides.library.jhu.edu/content.php?pid=198142&sid=2717962

Evaluating Information from a Citation

First, make sure you are looking at the most detailed version of the citation/ abstract that is available to you.

Then dig for specifics:

• Author. Can you determine the author’s affiliation or credentials? Is the author from a university or research organization?
• Publication date.  When was this published?  Is currency important for your topic?
• Length.  How long is the article?  2-3 pages does not provide in-depth coverage and is not likely to be a peer-reviewed, research article.
• Abstract.  Is there an abstract?  Reading an abstract takes much less time than skimming the whole article – use it to help decide if this article will be useful!
• Peer-review.  Is the article from a peer-reviewed (sometimes called “refereed”) journal?

Sample article record from one of the library databases:

You will notice that the author is from an educational institution; the article was published in August 2009; it has 19 cited references; and the article is 11 pages long. In addition, even though this article was published in August 2009, it has already served as a source for another article, as designated by "Times Cited in this Database."

To ensure that the journal is peer-reviewed, you read more about it on the journal publisher’s website or ask a librarian! 

Challenge

Challenge information and demand accountability. Stand right up to the information and ask questions. Who says so? Why do they say so? Why was this information created? Why should I believe it? Why should I trust this source? How is it known to be true? Is it the whole truth? Is the argument reasonable? Who supports it?

Credibility

Is it a trustworthy source?  What are the author’s credentials?  Is there evidence of quality control?  It is produced by a known or respected authority?  What is the organizational support?  Goal:  an authoritative source, a source that supplies some good evidence that allows you to trust it.

Accuracy

Is the information up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive?  Who is the audience?  Does the purpose reflect intentions of completeness and accuracy. Goal: a source that is correct today (not yesterday), a source that gives the whole truth.

Reasonableness

Is the information fair, balanced, objective, reasoned, with no conflict of interest?  Is there an absence of fallacies or slanted tone?  Goal:  a source that engages the subject thoughtfully and reasonably, concerned with the truth.

Support

Does the site contain listed sources, contact information, and available corroboration? Are the claims supported and further documentation supplied?  Goal: a source that provides convincing evidence for the claims made, a source you can triangulate (find at least two other sources that support it).

Adapt

Adapt your skepticism and requirements for quality to fit the importance of the information and what is being claimed.  Require more credibility and evidence for stronger claims. You are right to be a little skeptical of dramatic information or information that conflicts with commonly accepted ideas. The new information may be true, but you should require a robust amount of evidence from highly credible sources.