Week 4 / Source Evaluation

Source Evaluation: Web Sites

Directions: Post all answers on your blog. For this assignment, you’ll use the source evaluation techniques discussed in the C.A.R.D.I.O. presentation.

You have 2 sets of web sites to evaluate and score (4 total). These sites were all found searching Google on either the topic name or related terms.

1. Examine each site closely and fill in the boxes for each evaluation step.
2. Score the site in each area according to the scale below.
3. Assign an overall score to the site, and answer the questions.

Topic #1: Pediatric Medicine Score scale 1 = worst, 5 = best

Site: American College of Pediatricians URL: http://acpeds.org/ Score:
Currency:When was this site last updated? Look at a few documents on the page—can you tell when they were written? Fairly recent. Copyrights 2007, and contact information at bottom of pages. Most linked pages don’t tell exactly when written. 3
Authority:What person or organization is responsible for this content? What are his/hers/their credentials?Who do you think is the audience for this info? The ACP is responsible for the content. All members have degrees within the medical field. The audience is probably parents/guardians of children. 3
Relevance:What is this site about? Is it easy to tell? What is the scope of coverage (broad, narrow, etc.) I first thought this site would have tons of information of children’s medical assisstance, but after browsing through, I realized it has more to do with raising children with constructive medical advice. 2
Depth & Documentation:Any references, or referrals to other sites/pages? How “deep” is this info? Is it appropriate for a research paper, or more suited to a consumer? There are some reference lists which would be helpful to get the more indepth information because these articles aren’t very “deep.” I don’t think I would use this as a source in a research paper unless is was appropriate to use more of a personal opinion or advice article. 2
Information Type:Facts, research, opinion pieces, primary sources (interview, etc.) If facts, do they appear accurate? There are selective facts, the site is mostly opinion articles. 3
Objectivity:Does this site appear to be objective, or does it contain a bias? Is the site selling something, like a produce or an idea? This site is strongly subjective, and on some very controversial issues. They aren’t selling a direct product, but influencing the consumers. 1

Site: American Academy of Pediatrics URL: http://www.aap.org/ Score:
Currency:When was this site last updated? Look at a few documents on the page—can you tell when they were written? There is no year associated with the copyright. However there were seminar dates posted that are upcoming so the information seems to be updated often. 4
Authority 1 = What person or organization is responsible for this content? What are his/hers/their credentials?Who do you think is the audience for this info? The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP)is an organization of 60,000 members, they are responsible for the site’s content. All the article are written by pediatricians. The audience would be parents/guardians, young adults, or other professionals researching the various health information. 5
Relevance:What is this site about? Is it easy to tell? What is the scope of coverage (broad, narrow, etc.) This site is about providing information on pediatrics for the different stages of childhood and in different aspects of health. The site contains a wide range of coverage but can get narrow to a specific point. 5
Depth & DocumentationAny references, or referrals to other sites/pages? How “deep” is this info? Is it appropriate for a research paper, or more suited to a consumer? The level of depth depends on what the article is about. Some general health topics are just brief summaries, other more professionally driven articles are very deep and include references. 4
Information Type:Facts, research, opinion pieces, primary sources (interview, etc.) If facts, do they appear accurate? Mostly factual, with some primary sources and opinions but still very informative and accurate. The different catergories are well organzied. 5
Objectivity:Does this site appear to be objective, or does it contain a bias? Is the site selling something, like a produce or an idea? Mainly objective. This site isn’t selling anything just offering assisstance. 4

Review your CARDIO assessment for each Pediatric Medicine site. In your view, which has a better overall score?
AAP: 27
ACP: 14


Would you consult either of these sites if doing research on this topic? Both? Neither? Explain.
I would consult the AAP site for sure because it’s mainly factual and objective information on a wide range of topics, which is exactly what is needed for a paper. The information is written by the right authority too, like pediactricians. I probably wouldn’t use the ACP site unless I was looking for a sunjective view on controversial issues.



Topic #2: Aztec History Score scale 1 = worst, 5 = best

Site: Aztec History URL: http://www.crystalinks.com/aztechistory.html Score:
Currency:When was this site last updated? Look at a few documents on the page—can you tell when they were written? This exact page doesn’t say but the home page says it was updated today. 2
Authority 1 = What person or organization is responsible for this content? What are his/hers/their credentials?Who do you think is the audience for this info? “Crystalinks” was created by a woman named Ellie Crystal who is a psychic, therapist, reiki master, author, researcher, lecturer and broadcaster. She has a PhD in metaphysics as well as a degree in hypnotherapy. The audience for this site is the public. 2
Relevance:What is this site about? Is it easy to tell? What is the scope of coverage (broad, narrow, etc.) It is very easy to tell this site holds a brief and broad description of Aztec history. 1
Depth & DocumentationAny references, or referrals to other sites/pages? How “deep” is this info? Is it appropriate for a research paper, or more suited to a consumer? This information is not deep, very short and broad, there are no references other than knowing I came from Ellie Crystal. I would not use this for a research paper. 1
Information Type:Facts, research, opinion pieces, primary sources (interview, etc.) If facts, do they appear accurate? It appears to be factual given the writer’s backgroud but without references you can never be sure. 1
Objectivity:Does this site appear to be objective, or does it contain a bias? Is the site selling something, like a produce or an idea? Again you never really know here if it’s objective or not given the lack of references. Aside from the variety of information readily available, Ellie is selling her psychich services online. 1


Site: The Aztecs: A Pre-
Columbian History URL: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1999/2/99.02.01.x.html Score:
Currency:When was this site last updated? Look at a few documents on the page—can you tell when they were written? The information on the site is from a 1999 Volume but the site was last copyrighted in 2009. 5
Authority 1 = What person or organization is responsible for this content? What are his/hers/their credentials?Who do you think is the audience for this info? Silverio A. Barroqueiro is the page’s author, it does state his specific credentials but given the site is a Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute I would trust they’re acceptable. The audience is most likely fellow teachers. 4
Relevance:What is this site about? Is it easy to tell? What is the scope of coverage (broad, narrow, etc.) Pretty easy to find that the site contains course material, lesson plans, student readings, ect. for teachers to use in high school courses. The information provided on the site is somewhat broad but does have a good reference. 5
Depth & DocumentationAny references, or referrals to other sites/pages? How “deep” is this info? Is it appropriate for a research paper, or more suited to a consumer? There are a number of references. The information isn’t really deep since it just provides breif overview and suggestions. I would maybe use some of this site and certainly it’s references on a paper. 4
Information Type:Facts, research, opinion pieces, primary sources (interview, etc.) If facts, do they appear accurate? The information is definitely factual, especially when provided with so many references to futher the research if desired. 5
Objectivity:Does this site appear to be objective, or does it contain a bias? Is the site selling something, like a produce or an idea? This site contains all objective information. There is nothing being sold here, just providing ideas for teachers. 5


Review your CARDIO assessment for each Aztec History site. In your view, which has a better overall score?
Crystal: 8
Yale: 28


Would you consult either of these sites if doing research on this topic? Both? Neither? Explain.
I would definitely not use the Crystalinks site because this woman Ellie has more information up about her psychic services and weird science rather than indepth information about Aztec history. Not to mention the lack of references, and uncertainty of her authority. I would however use the Yale-New Haven website seeing as how there are numerous references and good authority backing the site.