Essentials of Business Communication 10th Edition by Dana Loewy,Mary Ellen Guffey

تمرين 15

Evaluating a website's credibility requires critical thinking and a good eye. Savvy Web users start the evaluation process by thinking about how they found the site in the first place. They may have accessed the site from the results page of a search engine or by following a link from a reputable site. Perhaps the site was recommended by a friend, which would add credibility. The processes for finding Web information may vary, but the reader alone is responsible for determining the validity, truthfulness, and integrity of that information. Because anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can publish on the Web, the reader must beware and wisely question all Web content.
Unlike the contents of journals, magazines, and newspapers found in research-oriented libraries, the content of most websites has not been reviewed by skilled editors. Some Web pages do not show authorship, credentials, or sponsoring organizations. The content cannot be verified. These sites have low credibility.
As a frequent Web user, you must learn to critically examine Web information for credibility. The following checklist of questions about authorship, publisher or sponsor, currency, content quality, and accuracy and organization will help you critically assess the validity of Web information.
Authorship
• Who authored this page or article?
• Are the author's credentials easily found? If not, check the author's credentials online.
• Is the author affiliated with a reputable organization?
• Is the author's contact information, such as an e-mail address, easily found?
• Are the About page and the Contact page easy to spot?
Publisher or Sponsor
• What organization publishes or sponsors this Web page? Is the publisher reputable?
• What domain is used in the URL? The domain name gives clues about who published the document (e.g.,.com,.org,.edu,.gov,.net).
• Is the site published or sponsored in another country? Look for a two-letter code in the URL:.uk,.au,.br,.hu,.mx,.ca,.in.
Currency
• When was the Web page published or last updated? Readers expect this information at the bottom of the page.
• Is this a website that requires current, updated information (e.g., science, medicine, current events)?
• Are all links on this Web page current and working? Broken links are red flags.
Content Quality
• What is the purpose of the Web page? For example, does the page entertain, inform, persuade, sell, or express satire?
• Who is the intended audience of the page, based on its content, tone, and style?
• Do you see evidence of bias, and does the author acknowledge the bias?
• Does the site link to other reputable sites? Do those sites in turn link back to the site in question?
• Does the page contain distracting graphics or fill the screen with unwanted ads and pop-ups?
Accuracy and Organization
• Does the information appear to be well researched?
• If the site contains statistics and facts, are sources, dates, and/or citations provided?
• Is the information well organized with main points clearly presented?
• Is the site well designed and easy to navigate? Good design adds credibility.
• Does the page have broken links or graphics that don't load?
• Are the graphics appropriately placed and clearly labeled?
• Does the site have spelling, grammar, or usage errors? Careless errors are red flags.
Career Application. As interns in a news-gathering service, you have been asked to assess the quality of the following websites. Think about whether you would recommend these sites as trustworthy sources of information.
• Beef Nutrition (http://www.beefnutrition.org)
• Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com)
• EarthSave (http://www.earthsave.org)
• The White House (http://www.whitehouse.net)
• The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov)
• GulfLINK (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil)
• The Anaheim White House Restaurant (http://www
.anaheimwhitehouse.com)
• National Anti-Vivisection Society (http://www.navs.org)
• PETA (http://www.peta.org)
• WebMD (http://www.webmd.com)
• Petrol Direct (http://www.petroldirect.com)
• Buy Dehydrated Water (http://www.buydehydratedwater.com/ci.htm)
• Smithsonian (http://www.si.edu)
• Hootsuite (https://hootsuite.com)
• Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs (http://zapatopi.net/bsa)
• Mint (https://www.mint.com)
• DHMO.org (http://www.dhmo.org)
• Lonely Planet (http://www.lonelyplanet.com)
• Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com)
• American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org)
• The Onion (http://www.theonion.com)
• Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/ treeoctopus)
Your Task. If you decide to use teams, divide the preceding list among team members. If you are working individually, select four of the sites. Analyze each site using the checklist of questions in each category. Then summarize your evaluation of each site in a memo or e-mail report addressed to your boss (your instructor). Your report may also become part of a team presentation or a class discussion. Add a comment about whether you would recommend this site for researchers of news articles. Be careful-even a hoax site can seem reputable and trustworthy at first glance. Be careful not to label sites as good or bad. Even biased sites may have large audiences and some merit.