Evaluating Information

The easiest way to do this is to open an additional web browser to view the two sites.

A. http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm

B. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

Name: Your Email:

1. You are gathering information for a paper on capital punishment.  Compare the two sample web pages above and evaluate them based on the following criteria. For example, under the Author item in the first box, you can comparatively discuss the two sites. Each criterion is linked to an explanation or examples. (You can visit the sites then backbutton without losing your text.)

2. Working with information for your own topic, evaluate one of your sources according to the criteria above.
Author [To list]

  • Can you tell who the author of the document is?

  • Is there any biographical information provided for the author (title, area of expertise, education)?

  • Do you recognize this author as an authority in the field or as someone mentioned in other sources you have read?

Contact Information [To list]

  • How easy is it to call or email the person presented as the source or creator of the page or site? Is a mailing address included?

  • Often,  you will find a mailto link at the bottom of a page.

Affiliation with Organization [To list]

  • Is the organizational or institutional affiliation given? Is it easy to access the institution's home page?

  • Can you determine the relationship between the author and the instituion?

Domain [To list]

Domain the domain name lets you know the type of organization you have accessed.  For this particular server, rhet.csustan.edu, the domain is edu.

  • .com indicates that the source is produced by a for-profit commercial enterprise (microsoft.com)indicates that the source is produced by a for-profit commercial enterprise (microsoft.com)

  • .edu indicates that the source is produced by an educational institution (csustan.edu)indicates that the source is produced by an educational institution (csustan.edu)

  • .gov indicates that the source is produced by a government agency (irs.gov)indicates that the source is produced by a government agency (irs.gov)

  • .org indicates that the source is produced by a non-profit organization (worldhope.org)indicates that the source is produced by a non-profit organization (worldhope.org)

  • .mil indicates that the source is produced by the military (tanknet.mil)indicates that the source is produced by the military (tanknet.mil)

  • .net indicates an internet service provider (ISP) (jps.net)

HH01515A.gif (970 bytes)Think about how this information may help you judge the perspective or bias of a source. Does it make any difference if a page about smokers' rights comes from a .com or a .gov site?

Links to Other Sites [To list]

Are there links to other similar or useful sites? (See the page of resources for this site.)

Update Information [To list]

  • When was the page or site last updated?

  • Is there a copyright date available in the source?

  • For current topics, does the source draw on very recent information?

Navigability [To list]

  • When you enter the site, can you tell where you are immediately?

  • Is the site well organized?

  • Is it easy to move from page to page, from section to section, back and forth?

Integration of multi-media [To list]

  • Is the page or site visually appealing?

  • Do color, graphics, sounds, and/or video enhance the site?

  • If there are advertisements, do they interfere with the other content of the site?

Context of Information [To list]

  • Does the author integrate other reliable sources into his or her work?

  • If other sources are integrated, is a bibliography provided?

  • For sources which present an argument, are alternative views presented?

  • For reports of research, is there any explanation of methods of collecting, analyzing, or interpreting information?

If you have an idea for another evaluation criterion, please submit it:

Mark Thompson/© 1999.  Revised: March 09, 2009.