Assessing Website Credibility

Home , Credibility

TEACHER RESOURCE Assessing website credibility judging the authority and credibility of information targeted 4 posted on the Internet adaptable Learning outcomes Primary Intermediate • assess the credibility of a website, based on specific criteria Middle 4 • understand the value of comparing websites to ensure credibility and discover the best Senior 4 sources of information

Learn about the strategy

Discuss author ➤➤ Introduce the concepts of author and authority and pose the questions for discussion. and authority ➤➤ Following the discussion, record student-student responses to the last question under the heading Criteria for credible authorities and leave visible for the second activity.

Student activity

Discuss the following questions. Possible responses üü What does it mean to say that üü author is someone who writes something someone is an author? like a poem, essay, novel, blog, twitter post, üü What does it mean to say that Facebook page someone is an authority on a topic? üü author creates, writes, describes üü Are all authors authorities on their üü author can write fiction (not real / not true) topic? Why or why not? or nonfiction üü Under what conditions would an author be an authority? (real / true) üü authority is an accepted source of informa- Share your discussion ideas with the tion class. üü authority is an expert on a subject, nonfiction material üü not all authors are authorities as could be writing creatively or are not writing to inform üü anyone can write (be an author, though not necessarily a good one), but an authority needs to be quite informed on a topic üü authors may be authorities when they are

experts on a particular subject and choose 30 to write about it

Opportunities for differentiation üü Provide students with examples of authors and authorities. Assessing website credibility

Assessing website credibility 1 © The Critical Thinking Consortium TEACHER RESOURCE

Rate website ➤➤ Explain that not all websites are equal and students must look carefully at each to ensure that authorities the website creators are “authorities” on the subject they are discussing. Suggest that the criteria for credible authorities could be extended and applied to assessing website credibility. ➤➤ Distribute Credible website authorities? (Activity Sheet A) and invite students to discuss and rate the credibility of each website information source based on the criteria for credible authorities.

ACTIVITY SHEET Credible website authorities? A Student activity How credible is each website for the research topi Name c?

Credibility rating Reasons for rating Based on the criteria for credible authorities developed by Research topic: lung cancer No Sour credibility High ce of information: credibility a website creat ed by 0 1 2 the class, rate the credibility of the source of information for the tobacco industry 3 4 5

Research topic: requirements for at - tending the University of Toronto next fall No each website provided. High credibility Source of information: credibility a University of 0 1 2 3 4 5 Toronto website created in 1994

Possible reasons for rating Resear ch topic: Canada’s Olympians Sour No ce of information: credibility High a website created by credibility the Canadian Olympic 0 1 2 3 4 5 üü bias – the author has something to gain Association Research topic: global warming (for a science project) No credibility High Source of information: credibility ü a website created by a 0 1 2 ü experience / age of the author 3 4 5 Grade 7 class

Research topic: what type of car to ü 30 ü reputation of the author purchase No Sour credibility High ce of information: credibility a website created by 0 1 2 Nissan 3 4 5 üü currency of the information source

edibility

Assessing website cr

Assessing website cr edibility 5 © The Critical Thinking Con sortium

Develop criteria for ➤➤ Add newly suggested criteria to Criteria for credible authorities. Suggest that authorship is website credibility only one dimension of assessing website credibility. Change the title of the list to Criteria for a credible website. ➤➤ Following the brainstorming activity, guide students in grouping the criteria and identifying the most important. Student activity In a group, brainstorm elements that Possible responses make a website credible. üü site has title, author / organization, date üü URL (link address) has edu in it, so it belongs to Collaboratively identify the five an educational community most important criteria. üü site has been positively reviewed by others Possible criteria üü website seems professional in layout and is well üü authorship crafted (no technical mistakes like spelling, üü sponsorship grammar, punctuation) üü sources of ideas / information üü content appears balanced (not one-sided); no üü indicators of care obvious “vested interest” by a certain person, group, or organization that would create bias credibility Assessing website üü information appears appropriate and accurate üü content appears up-to-date (website has been recently updated)

üü website suits audience (your) purpose (not too simple, not too complex)

Opportunities for differentiation 30 üü Provide criteria and invite students to rank order, or select the five most important.

Assessing website credibility 2 © The Critical Thinking Consortium TEACHER RESOURCE

Practise the strategy

Review a website ➤➤ Select an appropriate website for students to examine. Review the criteria for a credible website. Using the Assessing website credibility data chart (Activity Sheet B), work collaboratively with students to assess the credibility of the website. Encourage students to identify positive and negative features. Student activity Go to the suggested website. Possible responses Where to look In your group, discuss where to look üü URL (check the domain name, check for a for evidence related to each criterion. tilde symbol, ~) Collaboratively identify evidence that üü resources / references at the end of the article supports or rejects each criterion on the üü author (at the beginning or end of the article) data chart. üü contact information Discuss the difference between a üü content (fact or opinion, purpose, bias) feature and the implications of that üü logos, symbols feature. üü titles üü pictures / images üü reviews (balance, bias) üü pose (not too simple, not too complex)

Assessment for learning üü Ensure that students know where to look for evidence about website credibility. üü Introduce the Assessing website credibility rating scale (Activity Sheet E). Use the example students completed collaboratively to brainstorm descriptors for “excellent“ assessment of website credibility, using each criterion.

Compare websites ➤➤ Assign pairs of websites, from the sites provided on Website pairs (Activity Sheet C), to student partners. Provide no clues (including title, as that might influence students) as to which sites are reliable or unreliable.

Assessing website cr B edibility data chart Student activity Name of website

REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE

Evidence from website Implications for REASONS FOR DOUBTING AUTHORSHIP believability Evidence fr om website Implications for al Thinking Consortium ACTIVITY SHEET What do we know about the creators of believability Go to the two websites you have been assigned. the website that migh t affect the believability of its contents? The Critic

© SPONSORSHIP What do we know about the individual(s) or group(s) who spon- sored the website that Rate the credibility of each website, using the might affect the believability of its contents? SOURCES OF IDEAS What do we know about how information

for this website was ob- 6 tained and veriﬁ Assessing website credibility data chart (Activity ed that might affect the believability of its contents?

INDICATORS OF CARE Does the website’ s pre- Sheet B). sentation style, tone, and format provide clues about the believability of its contents?

Overall, the website has: very high credibility Justiﬁ cation good credibility some credibility Share your findings with the class. no credibility y Adapted with permi ssion (pending) from Liz A ustrom et al., Using El ectronic Information and Resources (V 30 ancouver, BC: The Critical Thinkin g Consortium, in press) .

Assessing website credibilit Assessing website credibility 30 Assessment for learning üü Encourage students to use the Assessing website credibility rating scale (Activity Sheet

E) to self- and peer-assess their analysis of the website’s credibility. Assessing website credibility

Assessing website credibility 3 © The Critical Thinking Consortium TEACHER RESOURCE

Use the strategy on your own

ACTIVITY SHEET Find the best website: ➤➤ Discuss with students the importance of website credibility. Overall website assessment D My research topic extension activity Four sites assessed, with the mo Suggest that an important task in researching any topic is to st credible one starred. Titles of sites and URLs (li nk addresses) 1. select the most credible websites as sources of information. 2. 3.

My most important r easons, with speciﬁ c evidence, are as follows. 1. Student activity 2. 3.

4. Find four relevant websites as sources for a research topic of 5. I recognize that the ot her website(s) has (have) some str particular, the important s engths r trengths, with speci elative to the one I have sele ﬁ c evidence, ar cted. In your choice. 1. e as follows. 2.

cr Assessing website Assessing

Gather evidence and assess the credibility of each site, using edibility 5.

Nevertheless, I believe thes e ar credible, for the following r e not as signiﬁ cant as the str easons. engths of the website I have judge the criteria for a credible website. d to be most

1. 30 2.

Adapted with permission (pending) fro Consortium, in press). m Liz Austrom et a Identify the most credible website and justify your decision, l., Using Electronic Informati on and Resource s (Vancouver, BC: The Criti Assessing website credibilit cal Thinking y 8 © using Overall website assessment (Activity Sheet D). The Critical Thinking Consortium

Review the strategy ➤➤ Explain to students that assessing website credibility is not Assessing website credibility STUDENT RESOURCE only useful for research in all the disciplines, but also when judging the authority and credibility of information posted o n the Internet

Pur pose Instructions “surfing the web” outside of school. Point out that this is strategy helps me to understand tha • Examine t some the website carefully websites are not cr of authorship, sponsorship, sources. Look of for ideas, positive and indicators of care. edible. I and negative evidence also hel t ps me to compare websites and s • Carefully review each element of the website. elect the strategy determines the credibility of the website, but further most credible ones for m URL: What re y is the domain address? search. dividual (~ is an indicator)? Is this website created by an in- Title: Does the title indicate a purpose for the site? examination may be required to decide whether or not the Date of creation or recent changes: How current is the information?

For a sample use of the Resources / references: Are quality sources of information cited? strategy , see the next page Reviews from peers: What comments have others made site is useful. Provide students with a copy of the Student Content: about the site? What is the purpose of the site? Is bias evident Presentation: Does the style, tone, and format indicate inthe the content content? is believable? Is the site free from technical errors? Resource. Suggest that this resource will help them apply the Contact information: Is contact information provided? • Click on some of the links / sidebars to look for further evidence. • Record evidence that supports the credibility of the website and evidence that raises doubts about it. strategy on their own. • Consider the implications of each piece of evidence. • Consult another website with the same topic and your ﬁ ndings. to conﬁ rm the information

• Revise your assessment, if necessary cr Assessing website Assessing , based on this new

edibility information

Assessing website credibilit y 10 © The Critical Thinking Consort Student activity ium Explain to a partner the purpose of Possible responses assessing website credibility. üü better to judge an author and whether he or she is an authority on a topic and not taking things Brainstorm the steps in assessing at face value website credibility. Compare your üü become a critical thinker who looks at a web- suggestions to those in the Student Resource. site’s source (author, structure, purpose, up-to- date information, bias) carefully before using it Discuss possible ways to use the for research or surfing the web at home Assessing website credibility üü understand that every site has an author but not strategy both in and out of school. every site is an authority on a subject credibility Assessing website

Assess the sample ➤➤ Review the sample use of the strategy found in the Student Resource. Invite students to use the rubric to assess the sample.

edibility

Student activity cr SAMPLE website Assessing use of the strategy Assessing website cr Name of website h edibility data chart p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper

REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE

Use the Assessing website credibility data chart Evidence from website Implications for REASONS FOR DOUBTING

believability hinking Consortium AUTHORSHIP Under the Discussion tab Evidence from website , people Implications for STUDENT RESOURCE What do we know P have written critiques of the eople are “watching” what is put believability about the creators of on Wikipedia and ar There is no formal peer r the website that might information they think is r e making the eview and Unless r eally effort to corr no real author of the material, so esearchers use affect the believability one-sided or wrong. Anyone can ect misinformation the reader can nev another website to confi or the rating scale to assess the sample use of the or mistakes rm The Critical T of its contents? edit the materials . er be sure that the information, ther . the author is an authority on the e is no guar © SPONSORSHIP subject or that all the mistakes antee that the information What do we know The About Wikipedia tab at the have been caught. is balanced or correct. Anyone about the individual(s) bottom states that the site is A not-for-profi t organization can say anything on the subject. means that they ar The About Wikipedia tab or group(s) who spon- run by a not-for-profi e not trying This hurts the believ strategy. sored the website that t parent discusses that it has a polic ability of the organization, The Wikimedia to “sell you” on a point of view for y of might af neutrality infl site because anyone, including fect the believ- Foundation. profi t. uenced by founder ability of its contents? Jimmy W the founder of Wikipedia, can

30 ales. But, W ales revised change information they deem SOURCES OF IDEAS his own biography, something What do we know Wikipedia will not allow original Wikipedia does not permit. “unacceptable” to them. about how information resear Every fact on Wikipedia must ch and states that all The About Wikipedia tab at the for this website was ob- material must be v be able to be double-checked The site is so huge that it would 11 tained and verifi erifi able. One by someone, and people cannot bottom states that the site is ed that can also check edits completed be impossible for v might affect the believ- be anonymous as they need run by volunteers. olunteers to ability of its contents? by looking at the History tab and catch ev an account for tr ery mistake and verify must have an account. acking and every piece of information that accountability INDICATORS OF CARE Wikipedia has a table of contents . people post. Does the website’ The style, tone and format s pre- (for organization), visuals sentation style, tone, , str Much of the information on graphs, few technical mistakes engthen the site’s believ and format provide ability Stephen Harper had multiple The site loses credibility when and a formal format that as it looks professionally cr clues about the believ- eated. edits and complaints about the hundreds of complaints and ability of its contents? includes endnotes. changes hav content and bias. e been made to the materials. Overall, the website has: very high credibility Justifi cation good credibility Some of the information may be checke x some credibility no credibility y the author of the information and ther d and edited for accur acy, but there is no evidence of the qualifi we do not know anything about these e are no reviews or r esearch cited for the information. The commen cations of the volunteers who edit the site. It is not critics. Wikipedia has been around for a lon Adapted with permiss ts indicate some people feel the informat clear who is ion (pending) from Liz Aus g time and their policy is that informatio ion is biased; howev trom et al., Using Elect er ronic Information and R n must be verifi able , esources (V . ancouver, BC: The Critical Thinking Consortium, in press).

Assessing website credibilit

Assessing website credibility 4 © The Critical Thinking Consortium ACTIVITY SHEET A Credible website authorities? How credible is each website for the research topic?

Name

Credibility rating Reasons for rating

Research topic: lung cancer No High credibility credibility Source of information: a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5 the tobacco industry

Research topic: requirements for at- tending the University No High of Toronto next fall credibility credibility

Source of information: 0 1 2 3 4 5 a University of Toronto website created in 1994

Research topic: Canada’s Olympians No High Source of information: credibility credibility a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5 the Canadian Olympic Association

Research topic: global warming (for a No High science project) credibility credibility

Source of information: 0 1 2 3 4 5 a website created by a Grade 7 class 30

Research topic: what type of car to purchase No High

credibility credibility Source of information: a website created by 0 1 2 3 4 5 Nissan Assessing website credibility

Assessing website credibility 5 © The Critical Thinking Consortium ACTIVITY SHEET B Justification Overall, the website has: ability of its contents? clues about the believ - and format provide sentation style, tone, Does the website’s pre - INDICATORS OF CARE ability of its contents? might affect the believ - tained and verified that for this website was ob - about how information What do we know SOURCES OF IDEAS ability of its contents? might affect the believ - sored the website that or group(s) who spon - about the individual(s) What do we know SPONSORSHIP of its contents? affect the believability the website that might about the creators of What do we know AUTHORSHIP Name of website

Evidence from website r Assessing website credibility data chart REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE very high credibility

Implications for believability r good credibility Evidence from website

r some credibility REASONS FOR DOUBTING credibility Assessing website

Implications for r

believability no credibility 30

Assessing website credibility 6 © The Critical Thinking Consortium ACTIVITY SHEET C Website pairs

Choose pairs of sites for students to explore. Do not include category titles as students should not know in advance which sites are reliable and which are not.

Unreliable sites Reliable sites

California’s Velcro Crop Under Challenge Welcome to the Velcro Companies http://www.umbachconsulting.com/ http://www.velcro.com miscellany/velcro.html

Experience the Newest Form of Water! Inter-Agency Connections for Freshwater Management http://www.buydehydratedwater.com/ home.html http://www.unwater.org

Behavior Problems in Cats Feline Reactions to Bearded Men http://www.peteducation.com/category. http://www.sree.net/stories/feline.html cfm?c=1+1310

Mankato, MN Home Page Elephant Butte

http://city-mankato.us http://cityofelephantbutte.com

Republic of Molossia Welcome to Digital Liechtenstein

http://www.molossia.org http://www.liechtenstein.li/en/

The Jackalope Conspiracy Endangered Species 30

http://www.sudftw.com/jackcon.htm http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered

Assessing website credibility

Assessing website credibility 7 © The Critical Thinking Consortium ACTIVITY SHEET D Overall website assessment

My research topic

Four sites assessed, with the most credible one starred.

Titles of sites and URLs (link addresses)

My most important reasons, with specific evidence, are as follows.

I recognize that the other website(s) has (have) some strengths relative to the one I have selected. In particular, the important strengths, with specific evidence, are as follows.

4. credibility Assessing website 5.

Nevertheless, I believe these are not as significant as the strengths of the website I have judged to be most credible, for the following reasons.

1. 30 2.

Assessing website credibility rating scale

I identify relevant evidence. Excellent Not yet “Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I identify positive and negative features. Excellent Not yet “Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I offer plausible implications. Excellent Not yet “Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating:

I justify my rating. Excellent Not yet “Look fors” (describe excellent): Evidence for rating: 30

Assessing website credibility

Assessing website credibility 9 © The Critical Thinking Consortium STUDENT RESOURCE Assessing website credibility judging the authority and credibility of information posted on the Internet

Purpose Instructions This strategy helps me • Examine the website carefully. Look for positive and negative evidence to understand that some of authorship, sponsorship, sources of ideas, and indicators of care. websites are not credible. It also helps me to compare • Carefully review each element of the website. websites and select the ßßURL: What is the domain address? Is this website created by an most credible ones for my individual (~ is an indicator)? research. ßßTitle: Does the title indicate a purpose for the site? ßßDate of creation or recent changes: How current is the information? ßßResources / references: Are quality sources of information cited? For a sample use of the ßßReviews from peers: What comments have others made about the site? strategy, see the next page. ßßContent: What is the purpose of the site? Is bias evident in the content? ßßPresentation: Does the style, tone, and format indicate the content is believable? Is the site free from technical errors? ßßContact information: Is contact information provided? • Click on some of the links / sidebars to look for further evidence. • Record evidence that supports the credibility of the website and evidence that raises doubts about it. • Consider the implications of each piece of evidence. • Consult another website with the same topic to confirm the information and your findings. • Revise your assessment, if necessary, based on this new information credibility Assessing website

SAMPLE we do not know anything about these critics. Wikipedia has been around for a long time and their policy is that information must be verifiable. the author of information and there are no reviews or research cited for the information. The comments indicate some people feel information is biased; however, Some of the information may be checked and edited for accuracy, but there is no evidence of the qualifications volunteers who edit the site. It is not clear who Justification Overall, the website has: ability of its contents? clues about the believ - and format provide sentation style, tone, Does the website’s pre - INDICATORS OF CARE ability of its contents? might affect the believ - tained and verified that for this website was ob - about how information What do we know SOURCES OF IDEAS ability of its contents? might affect the believ - sored the website that or group(s) who spon - about the individual(s) What do we know SPONSORSHIP of its contents? affect the believability the website that might about the creators of What do we know AUTHORSHIP Name of website use of the strategy

includes endnotes. and a formal format that graphs, few technical mistakes (for organization), visuals, Wikipedia has a table of contents must have an account. by looking at the History tab and can also check edits completed material must be verifiable. One research and states that all Wikipedia will not allow original Foundation. organization, The Wikimedia run by a not-for-profit parent bottom states that the site is The About Wikipedia link at the edit the materials. one-sided or wrong. Anyone can information they think is really have written critiques of the Under the Talk tab, people Evidence from website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper r REASONS FOR CONFIDENCE Assessing website credibility data chart very high credibility as it looks professionally created. strengthen the site’s believability The style, tone and format accountability. an account for tracking and be anonymous as they need by someone, and people cannot be able to double-checked Every fact on Wikipedia must profit. to “sell you” on a point of view for means that they are not trying A not-for-profit organization or mistakes. to correcteffort misinformation on Wikipedia and are making the People are “watching” what is put

Implications for believability r good credibility content and bias. edits and complaints about the Stephen Harper had multiple Much of the information on run by volunteers. bottom states that the site is The About Wikipedia link at the Wikipedia does not permit. his own biography, something Jimmy Wales. But Wales revised neutrality influenced by founder discusses that it has a policy of The About Wikipedia link have been caught. subject or that all the mistakes the author is an authority on the reader can never be sure that no real author of the material, so There is no formal peer review and

Evidence from website r x some credibility REASONS FOR DOUBTING

30 materials. changes have been made to the hundreds of complaints and The site loses credibility when people post. every piece of information that catch every mistake and verify be impossible for volunteers to The site is so huge that it would “unacceptable” to them. change information they deem the founder of Wikipedia, can site because anyone, including the believabilityThis hurts of the can say anything on the subject. is balanced or correct. Anyone guarantee that the information the information, there is no another website to confirm Unless researchers use

Implications for r believability no credibility

Assessing website credibility

Excellent Very good Competent Basic Not yet able

I identify accurate, relevant, and comprehensive evidence

I find details that I find details that are I find several obvious I find a few obvious are accurate, clearly accurate, relevant, and details that are largely details that are often relevant, and thoroughly address each criterion. accurate, generally accurate and relevant, address each criterion. I include some details relevant, and address and address some of I include many details that are not obvious. each criterion. the criteria. that are not obvious.

Evidence

I identify positive and negative evidence

I identify many features I identify some features I identify a few features I tend to identify only that both support and that both support and that support and question those features that question the website’s question the website’s the website’s credibility either support or credibility to offer a credibility to offer a to offer a somewhat question the website’s balanced assessment. balanced assessment. balanced assessment. credibility.

Evidence

I offer plausible implications

I suggest highly I suggest plausible, I suggest plausible I suggest the most plausible, thoughtful thoughtful implications implications for most of obvious implications for implications for all the for all the evidence. the evidence. some of the evidence. evidence.

Evidence credibility Assessing website I offer and justify realistic ratings

The ratings are all The ratings all seem Most ratings seem Some ratings are

very realistic given realistic given the realistic given the realistic given the the evidence, and I evidence, and I offer evidence, and I offer evidence, and I offer offer very thoughtful, thoughtful, insightful, relevant reasons for the only the most obvious insightful, and relevant and relevant reasons ratings. reasons for the ratings reasons for the ratings. for the ratings. 30

Evidence