1. Evaluating Internet Resources Why Evaluate? Identifying the Information Need Search Engines & Web Pages Evaluating Sources CARS Checklist Worksheet

2. Identifying the Information Need “What exactly are you looking for?” “What sources or what kind of sources would be most reliable for providing information for this particular research project?” “Who is most likely to provide fair, objective, quality resources?”

3. URLs Web site consists of one or more web pages The index page is typically the home page of the site Medium to large sites are comprised of folders & subfolders to organize the file structure of the site http://www.library.nscc.ca/Resources/databases/browse_titles.asp Web Site Folder Subfolder File

4. 5 Types of Web Pages InformationalInformational (.edu or.gov) to present factual information Promotional/CommercialPromotional/Commercial (.com) to sell or promote NewsNews (.com) to provide current information Advocacy Advocacy (.org) to influence opinion or “sell” ideas Personal published by an individual

5. Search Engines & Quality Most major search engines have some sort of “paid-for- placement” scheme Those who pay may get placed higher in the results than those who do not pay –therefore, top results are not necessarily the most relevant –therefore, excellent sites may not appear within the results GoogleGoogle & Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

6. Evaluating Information Challenges of the Internet Lack of information (scope notes) Difficult to verify the purpose -to inform, to persuade, to sell, to present a viewpoint or to challenge or change an attitude for belief Difficult to confirm date Quantity of information available

7. CARS Checklist CARS criteria will help to separate high quality information from poor quality information Credible Accurate Reasonable Support

8. Credible Author biographical information, professional standing, title, contact information, organization, corporation, governmental or non-profit Quality organizational web site / peer-reviewed Red Flags! - Lack of Credibility No author No quality control Poor grammar or sentence structure http://oncolink.upenn.edu/ http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Edkbrown/

9. Accurate Timely – shelf life Inclusivepresent a full and complete argument diversity - not reflected on the Internet (3%) Audience appropriate audience & purpose “For whom is this source intended and for what purpose?” Red Flags! - Lack of Accuracy Tone or style Outdated GeneralizationsBias http://www.no-smoke.org/ http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page1.asp

10. Reasonable Fair Balance, reasoned argument / calm, reasoned tone http://www.whitehouse.org/ ObjectiveBiases presented – motivations http://www.bioethics.gov/ ModerateLife skills and knowledge - is this possible http://www.malepregnancy.com/ World Viewpolitical, economic, religious & philosophical views http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage Red Flags! - Lack of Reasonableness Tone or language Over claims or generalizations Biases

11. Support BibliographyBibliography or documentation SupportSupporting sources - X3 “Is there support and from whom?” Navigation & Design graphs, fonts and backgrounds support the text Red Flags! - Lack of Support Lack of supporting evidence (statistics) Lack of documentation Distracting format/ design http://www.dhmo.org/ http://www.d-b.net/dti/

12. Conclusion Recap CARS Who is the author Who is the host? (government, non-profit, business) What is the purpose & audience? Is the information reasonable & fair? Is the information free from bias & emotion? Can they prove their arguments - how? Is the site easy to use? Evaluating information requires a critical approach Evaluate and re-evaluate information regularly