Evaluating web resources
Download as PPTX, PDF0 likes115 views
This document introduces the CRAP test for evaluating the reliability of website sources. The CRAP test evaluates websites based on four criteria: Currency, Reliability, Authority, and Purpose. Currency evaluates how up-to-date the information is. Reliability evaluates the accuracy and completeness of the information. Authority evaluates the expertise and credibility of the author/publisher. Purpose evaluates any potential biases based on the intent and sponsorship of the site. The document provides examples and questions to consider under each criteria to help determine the reliability of a given website source.
Evaluating web resources
- 1. Evaluating Website Sources How do you know when something on the internet is true?
- 3. 1. Currency= is it recent? ●It may have been a good source…. 10 years ago. ●Is there new information that negates it? Is Pluto as a planet? Is a Brontosaurus a kind of dinosaur? Columbus was the first European to discover America?
- 5. 2. Reliability ● What kind of information is included in the website? Is the content primarily fact, or opinion? Based on your other research, is it accurate? ...complete? Does the author provide references for quotations and data? If there are links, do they work? ●Don’t be fooled by the exact same wording.
- 7. 4. Authority ●How did the author get this information? Did they just make it up? ●Can you determine who the author/creator is? ●Is there a way to contact them? ●Is there evidence they're experts on the subject? ●Who is the publisher or sponsor of the site? ●Is this publisher/sponsor reputable?
- 9. 1. Purpose ● What's the intent of the website (to persuade, to sell you something, etc.)? How might the domain (.edu, .org, .com, etc.) influence the purpose/point of view? Are there ads on the website? How do they relate to the topic being covered (e.g., an ad for ammunition next to an article about firearms legislation)? Who might benefit from a reader believing this website?
- 10. Hillaryclinton.org bears the likely Democratic presidential candidate's name, but she would not want supporters to go there: some cyber security experts said this week the site contains malicious software. The site is registered, not to Clinton, but to an administrator in the Cayman Islands. Its existence underscores the challenge 2016 U.S. presidential hopefuls will face in trying to control their digital brands, more important than ever before as voters increasingly turn to the Internet to learn more about candidates. An examination by Reuters of domains including the full names of eight Republican and four Democratic hopefuls, ending in .com, .org, .net and .info, showed that only a few of those sites appear to be under the control of the candidates. The rest are seemingly owned by a hodgepodge of buyers - from self-declared fans of the candidates to anonymous registrants who have "parked" the domains - that is to say owned but unused - for undisclosed reasons. Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-domains-idUSKBN0MT21O20150402#tLtUUIkdAHqec6Jq.99
- 11. http://www.dhmo.org/ Is this a reliable source? 1.Yes 2.No
- 12. http://www.genochoice.com/ Is this source reliable? 1.Yes 2.No
- 13. http://www.prisonexp.org/ Is this a reliable source? 1.Yes 2.No
- 14. http://allaboutexplorers.com/ Is this a reliable source? 1.Yes 2.No
- 15. Some Tips 1.Use DATABASES 1. Ask your librarian for help.