© Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 1 evaluating information on the web Tefko Saracevic School of Communication, Information and Library Studies Rutgers.

© Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University

1

evaluating information on the web

Tefko SaracevicSchool of Communication,

Information and Library StudiesRutgers University

http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko










2

evaluating internet resources

• impossible? not really• hard? very• help? exists if you persist• LECTURE TOPICS:

– how to go about it?– what are the main criteria?– where to verify?


3

the web

• fastest growing technology in history• explosive growth of WWW provided

– ubiquity of information and access– but also information chaos & anarchy

•growing difficulty in identifying, searching, retrieving and EVALUATING

•metaphors: ‘lost in an ocean’ ‘finding pearls in garbage dumps’ ‘needle in haystack’


4

web is value neutral

• all kinds of information can be found– misinformation

•deliberate, just plain wrong or plain stupid

– disinformation, censored– hate information– propaganda, spin doctored information– questionable, inaccurate, – harmful, objectionable, insulting


5

value neutral ...• but information that is also

– valid, reliable, useful, relevant, accurate, factual, timely, credible … •to a high degree• appropriate to many problems & tasks

– otherwise hard or impossible to find, retrieve & access

– from sources that are trustworthy


6

prerequisite knowledge

• to evaluate web information needed knowledge about – web structure & mode of operandi of

the internet & domain name system– notion & characteristics of cognitive

authority– criteria adapted for the web


7

evaluated


8

cognitive authority

“influence on one’s thoughts that one would consciously recognize as proper”

Patrick Wilson

• related to assignment of credibility– two components:

competence & trustworthiness

• ascribed to particular individual, institution, organization, action


9

problems

• on the web– traditional authority indicators

difficult to attribute - often absent•authorship? title? version? place of

origin?•author qualification? credentials?

– no filtering– vanity publishing


10

problems ...

– sometimes even attribution difficult•identity? reputation? qualifications?•can be published by anyone•anyone can claim to be somebody

else

• assigning credibility to Web information a BIG problem


11

solutions

• rigorous evaluation– more detailed than print sources

• depending on known authority sites, authors, organizations

• following many sites that did evaluation already


12

evaluation criteria

• many traditional criteria remain but with new interpretations

• a number of new criteria have emerged specific to digital nature of resources & access

•many are stated & can be found on the Web e.g. library sites


13

web & cognitive authority

need to carefully asses (always, web or no web):

document, author, institution & affiliation

on criteria of: authorityaccuracy currencyobjectivitycoverage


14

specific evaluation criteria

•what & why? - documents, objects

– content? purpose? scope? viewpoint?

•by whom? - creators, authors, institutions

– identity? authority? credibility? reputation? qualification? refereeing?

•where? - affiliation, connections

– identity? overt? covert? authority? credibility? reputation?


15

criteria ...• for whom? - orientation

– intended audience? needs satisfied? fit with user community?

•when? - timeliness

– currency? up-to-date? revisions? persistence estimate?

•how? - treatment, coverage

– accuracy? credibility? objectivity? style? clarity? organization? usability?


16

criteria ...• in what way? - presentation

– format? layout? interface? search capabilities? access?

• how much? - economics

– effort? price? cost-benefits? license?

• in comparison to? - competition

– other similar resources?


17

model for evaluating information on the

web• INPUT: filter & assessment for

– document– author– institution– affiliation

• OUTPUT: combined assessment & ascription of cognitive authority


18

model ...

input from the web

ascription of cognitive authority

assess document

assess author

assess institution

assess affiliation

filter


19

examples

• newspapers– New York Times; many others

• governments– in the US: Census Bureau; State

Department; Nat. Inst. of Standards

• organizations– www consortium (w3c)


20

examples ...

• international– UN, European Union agencies

• professional– Assoc. for Computing Machinery

• health– Mayo Clinic; Rx list for

pharmaceuticals


21

examples ...

• science– national academies of many countries

• commercial– encyclopedias, reference sources– Britannica has evaluated web sites

• publishers– evaluated sites e.g. Choice


22

libraries & web authority

• emerged as an important sourceemerged as an important source– many provide evaluated sites & linksmany provide evaluated sites & links

• judicial judicial & trusted selection: trusted selection: – a ka key value-added contribution by

libraries internationally – trust extends to digital collections– makes all the difference between a

library & other collections


23

library examples

• national libraries: many links– Library of Congress; UKOLN (UK)

• academic libraries: great many– U of Michigan: law– U of California Berkeley: many domains– Virtual Library (Switzerland)– etc. etc. etc. GREAT sources!


24

reference, journals

• elaborate online reference sites– Martindale’s reference desk– some commercial e.g. Ask Jeeves– reference questions answered online

• pathways, guides• publications - some free other

licensed - licensing now a big deal


25

specialized

• digital libraries emerged in great many domains, fields– history, national memories– arts, museums, music, poetry ...– science, technology– geography, climate, weather– cooking, stamp collecting, sports ...


26

conclusions

• web sources HAVE to be evaluated• many evaluations follow traditional

criteria e.g. as for news accounts• many new criteria evolved• many tools already there• hard but possible!


27

sources

• URLs for the mentioned & many other sites can be found on:

http://scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/D-Lib_Edu/













28

© Tefko Saracevic, Rutgers University 1 evaluating information on the web Tefko Saracevic School of Communication, Information and Library Studies Rutgers.

Documents

web slide

web information

haystack slide

evaluated slide

insulting slide

action slide

trustworthy slide

web cognitive authority