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
Currency of Web Resources
Coverage of Web Resources
Objectivity of Web Resources
Accuracy of Web Resources
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:
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.