Answers to these questions will comprise your "Response" to Box 31 (406-07) in Fieldworking. This evaluation is a key part of one of the goals for this course, and in fact your education at Slippery Rock, to develop your "information literacy"--that is, to learn to become literate in the uses of the varieties of information which is out there. The web, and the internet at large, have become so ubiquitous in our lives that we need to understand how to use it effectively.
Pick a site which might be relevant to your final project, and then evaluate it. See the Course Calendar for the due date.
First, at the top of the report, write out a "Works Cited" reference to the site in proper MLA style.
Then, here are the specific categories for which to provide answers in your write-up. Criteria here are taken from LB 343-50. Please make sure that each category is clearly identified in your report. Under each, provide data and an explanation of the data. Under category 2, for instance, don't just say "it's targeted at teenagers"; explain why you know this (cite data), whether it works or not, and how that affects the value of the site's content. Give evidence.
- Authority? The overall question to ask here is not simply whether the author has authority, but what kind of authority the author might have. Are they insiders or outsiders? Critics or supporters? Students or fans? For this, you'll have to figure out who the author actually is and what authority he, she, or it might have to talk about the subject. THEN, ask whether this authority is relevant to site content. Here is one category among several of these that you might look at the domain extension for help (.com, .gov, .edu, .tv, etc.).
- Audience? Who is the site intended for? Gauge its purpose. Why did the author create the site, and for whom?
- Is it current? Look for dates and information. Is it updated regularly? Is there a blog attached which might give a running commentary on updates?
- Presentation? Does the site make sense? Is it useable? Does the author care about typos, sloppy presentation, images which take a long time to download, annoying blinking graphics, or other indications of an unprofessional production? If not, maybe the writer really doesn't care about others view the content . . . but note that a slick site does not necessarily indicate a useful authority.
- Content? One aspect of this is substance: that is, is there information you can use? Is the site just a list, or does it provide actual content, like a narrative? A second aspect of this is bias: does the author proclaim a political or ideological bias either in the content or in some kind of affiliation listed on the site? We usually think of this as merely political (liberal or conservative), but also consider how its bias might academic, or journalistic, or non-professional but enthusiastic (like a hobbyist), or simply financial.
- Support? Support is crucial, for two reasons. First, does the author just say it, or does the author actually give evidence? Footnotes are necessary to any document's reliability. Second, will it help you to chase down further resources, or is it a dead end?
Then, after your analyses of these criteria, answer these questions: What is the site good for overall? How might it help you, and how will it not help you?
You should, then, have 8 parts in your answer, including the reference at the top. Again, write answers out fully!
If you like, here are some example pages to use. If you want more advice here on how to pursue website evaluation, you might check out this page at Berkeley or this page at New Mexico State U. And look in your Little, Brown Handbook, pages 323-41.