week six

LECTURE:

IQ Context:The WWW

the context of the World Wide Web open protocols;anyone use computer can create a web,exchange information and filters information to obtain the quality information.Therefore,anyone is eligeble to create a web.
-open architecture;
Has no enforceable quality control(Eppler et al,2002)
-the context of the WWW has no control of who publishes on the WWW,when looking on authorship,authority and authenticity.Find out the accuracy and trustworthiness of the publisher and the currency,reliability and the coverage of the information published on the web.These are the important keys to consider when using the WWW.

TUTORIAL:

List and compare strategies for evaluating information found on websites using the following webpages:

i.ICYouSeeCritical Thinking page: http://www.ithaca.edu/library/training/think.html AND
iii.Good, the Bad and the Ugly: http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html

1.Authority: Authority is a source of reliable information on a subject. Who wrote the information on the web page (who are the authors), who is responsible for it and why did they published it?
2.Accuracy: Accuracy is the correctness or truthfulness of the data on the web. Is the information reliable and facts? Is the information convincing? Is the website well presented e.g. no grammatical errors, spelling & punctuation?
3.Objecting: Objectivity is the aim or purpose of the information given. What are the author’s point of view and the purpose of the site? Does the information reveal a strong biased opinion?
4.Currency: when was the last update? Has the site been kept up-to-date? Does the week page have links that have current updated information on a similar topic?
5.Coverage: Does the information covered is condensed, and contains only key facts there than print coverage. Does the site address the topic you are researching?
6.Value: Does the site offer anything informative, unique, or insightful?

ii. INCO 48: http://www.taftcollege.edu/newTC/Academic/INCO48/sec6-4.htm

7.Content: what is the intent of the contents are the title and author identified, is the content “popular” or “scholarly” satiric or serious?
8.Credibility: Is the author reliable? Is the content credible? Authoritative? What is the purpose of the information published? Is the URL extension.edu, .com, .gov or .org?
9.Critical Thinking: How did the author apply his critical thinking skills, to evaluate internet resources? Can the author’s publisher and edition be identifying?
10.Copyright: Who is responsible for the creation of a document, graphic, sound or image and the material under the copyright conventions, is the copyright respected?
11.Citation: internet resources are cited in order to identify sources used, which can give the author a credit and provide the reader the interest for further research.
12.Continuity: Will the internet site be maintained and updated? Will the website charge fees for continued or in depth use. Censorship: Are the censorship and priority issues, consider when using the internet? Is the site discussion list “moderated” are search engine or index use to look for words?
13.Connectivity: are user’s access and “functionality” considered when accessing a site? How do users connect to the internet and what kind of connections does the assigned resource require?
14.Comparability: Does the Internet site contain comparable and complete data? (For example, some newspapers have partial but not full text information on the Internet.) Is there any comparison between data or statistics over time?
15.Context: What is the context for your research? Is there "anything" related to your research topic?

All the strategies listed above are from different sources. The first six strategies are from ICYouSeeCritical Thinking page and Good, the Bad and the Ugly page. The two webpages are very specific and clear on the ideas or strategies to evaluate the web compare to INCO 48 website.
B, Complete the "Reliving the Sixties: a Web Site Evaluation Assignment" exercise on the ICYouSee website. http://www.ithaca.edu/library/training/think60.html. Include screen shots if need be.

Evaluating Website B: A through the sixties.



Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Authorship:
-There was no author available on the website; the information provided was the published company’s name, Hip Inc. The website shown the copyright as C 1997-2008 by hip Inc. There is no specific year of publishing. “All content & images C 1997-2008 by Hip inc may not be reproduced/ published in any form without permission.

Accuracy:
The information given on the web page seems to be non-factual. The language used not appropriate, it is full of “slung words” such as honkie, Viet Cong, old hippie and so on.

Purpose:
-This website is full of the bias information. Because the article links the website and the site itself don’t have references and the authors, therefore, this shows that the information gathered is not reliable. The author point of view was just for fun and drawn the attention of the people for no reason.

Datail and Design:
The website is not update for quiet few years. The copyright Hip Publishing was from 1997-2008, Though some article are current.Also the webs have many links connected to it.

Overall Worth:
This site is not that bad,but compare it this time it does not worth anything.Nothing new and unique to learn.on the other hand,the language used is not at acedemic level.

Evaluating website E:Sixties Project.



Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Authorship:
There is no author mention on the website.Also there is no publisher name and date.the only information given is the last update which is 1999.

Accuracy:
Though there is no spelling or grammatic erros,the language seems to be fair enough.Also the information is not factual because the contain essays,poetry and scholarly articles.

Purpose:
The aim of the website was to gethered history from people.The following statement was from the webpage contain in this website."Here's where you can tell your stories about the Sixties, and where you can read the stories told by others. You can fill out a simple form, or you can submit your stories by email."

Datail and Design:
the website is not update since 1999.the website has no links to it,therefore,the information is not reliable.Have old design.

Overall worth:
this web worth nothing at all.it is a old fashion and useless to the present generation.