Evaluating a Website for Credibility: www.cdc.gov To evaluate the credibility of a website and support as a credible source for inclusion in a scholarly assignment, the student chose to evaluate www.CDC.gov. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a component of the Department of Health and Human Services that conducts critical science and provides important health information that protects the nation against dangerous health threats. This website was chosen by the student for a personal and professional interest in health information provided by the CDC. A Google search was performed to locate the website domain CDC.gov, resulting in web address http://www.cdc.gov/. The credibility of the website is evaluated using specific criteria and supported by empirical evidence. Using examples, the importance of evaluating internet-based information for a professional nurse is discussed. Analysis of the Website The student chose to evaluate the content of CDC.gov for credibility. The literature identifies five criteria that users should employ in their assessments of the credibility of Internet-based information: accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage (Metzger, 2010). For the purpose of this assignment, the approach to provide analysis of this Web-based source will be to use these five criteria: authority, information, objectivity, ease of navigation and privacy and security policies. The authority is who the author is and whether their contact information, credentials, qualifications and affiliations are provided (Metzger, 2010). The CDC was founded in 1946 signifying many years of experience as a well-known organization. The leadership information of the organization is available. All members and ... ... middle of paper ... ...a professional. Deemed a credible source of information, CDC.gov is an excellent resource for anyone seeking health information. . References CDC director. (2013, May 17). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/about/leadership/director.html CDC web privacy policy notice. (2014, March 19). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/other/privacy.html Johnson, T. (2011). S.P.I.D.E.R. A strategy for evaluating websites. Library Media Connection, 29(6), 58-59. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.devry.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a1fe208a-6fb8-4e68-8191-7ef041e2d483%40sessionmgr111&vid=25&hid=113 Metzger, M. J. (2010). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078-2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672
Caveat lector is a Latin phrase meaning, “let the reader beware.” Health information on the internet is growing at an alarming rate. However, some information on the internet is not accurate or current, and unfortunately, many web sites regarding healthcare offer misleading, incomplete, and incorrect information. Many consumers do not have the knowledge to judge and evaluate the quality of online information. This paper aims to discuss how the website WebMD presents information to readers. It will evaluate WebMD according to its source, where was the source obtained; type of funding, is it commercially funded or private; the validity and quality, how valid is the information and can it be verified; and privacy, is your personal information protected and how?
The two websites I have chosen to compare are Web MD, http://www.webmd.com/, and Mayo Clinic, http://www.mayoclinic.org/. These two websites are speaking towards the same subject, which is medical reasoning. However, they both may seem to aim toward the same audience, but one is for a professional audience and one is for a non-technical audience. People who want information about medical issues are going to view these sites.
...usion, Murley argues that Wikipedia is a great starting point because it provides references to other reputable sources. In order to use it appropriately, however, librarians and other instructors should teach researchers how to evaluate the articles for authority, completeness, bias, and accuracy. (2010, p. 599)
In today’s society information is everywhere. We have libraries, but we also have online resources. Information can be obtained from almost everywhere today, but how accurate are these websites in giving us actual facts and not just beliefs or people’s opinions. One of the most popular resources that we use to gather information is the famous Wikipedia. Type anything in any web search engine and you will most likely get results from Wikipedia. But is Wikipedia accurate? If we look at the websites URL, we can see that it’s a nonprofit organization, and a vast majority of people contribute, so there is no author, email, or phone number, or any way to contact. To verify how accurate all the information is. Putting Wikipedia to the test
Furman, Bess. A Profile of the United States Public Health Service 1798-1948. District of Columbia: National Institutes of Health, 1973. Print.
Web. The Web. The Web. 9 May 2012. Lipking, Lawrence I, Stephen Greenblatt, and M. H. Abrams.
Authority is of course of major concern when one is examining a website about a disorder that affects so many children and even adults. In order to establish authority one must ask a few questions, who authored the page and does the author have the proper credibility, just to name a couple. WebMD is authored by experts in medicine and health communication. Not only is the website authored by individuals in medicine it is also reviewed by a national network of physicians on a routine basis. This lends to establishing that the website has the proper level credibility for individuals seeking to know more about this disorder.
This has created a colossal problem. The problem has become one of sifting through a mass of advertising material and vanity publications in order to find information of high quality (Smith, 1997). Johns Hopkins University and other higher learning institutions have come up with ways to recognize the validity of a website. It is a five step validation and “three may be investigated by electronic means: Authorship, Publishing body and Currency (of the document itself)” (Johns Hopkins University, 2013).
article to make sure that the facts could be trusted. Information on the website can be edited
Johnson, Kirsten A., and Susan Wiedenbeck. "Enhancing Perceived Credibility Of Citizen Journalism Web Sites." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 86.2 (2009): 332-348.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2014). Quick guide to health literacy. Retrieved from website: http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/quickguide/factsbasic.htm
Ed. Edward N. Zalta, Ph.D. Winter 2011 Edition ed. Web. The Web. The Web.
Shippensburg University Journal. Sept. 1, 1997. Web. The Web. The Web.
Now that we are living in an ever changing world, technology is viewed as the most resourceful tool in keeping up with the pace. Without the use of technology, communication would be limited to using mail for delivery and encyclopedias for research. Although technology has improved the way we communicate and find information for research, the information is not always valid. Unfortunately, for those of us who use the internet for shopping, research, or reading articles of personal interest the information is not treated the same as a your magazine or book. While such literature is reviewed by an editorial staff, internet literature or information can be published by anyone. In order to reap the full benefit of having the use of technology for any purpose, there are five basic criteria’s one must keep in mind as an evaluating tool for deciding whether or not the particular website is a reliable source for information.
The objective of this essay is to compare Internet research with other sources of information which include books, word of mouth and primary research. This paper will also look at ways of ascertaining the validity of research information for academic work.