Evaluating the Credibility of Websites: Student Responses

In this activity, you will be tasked with visiting a known hoax website as well as two legitimate
websites and gauging their credibility based on various criteria.
This information must be completed by EACH student and uploaded onto each students
weebly.com website.

Task #1: Evaluating a Hoax

The following websites are known hoax websites created for the intended purpose of testing
how well individuals can assess the validity of internet sources.
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
http://www.dhmo.org/

Choose one of the two websites and complete the following table:
Read the following statements and determine the credibility of the website

Author Yes No

Is there an author given? Yes

Is the author credible? (If no author, leave blank) Yes

Is there an editor? No

Publisher

Is it obvious who published the site? No

Could they have an agenda in published the information? No

Purpose of the Site

Is the purpose of the site applicable to research? yes

Is the information biased? yes

Is the website trying to sell you something based on your view? yes

Intended Audience

Are you the intended audience of this website? no

Quality of Information

Is the information that is published timely? no

Is the website free of dead links, spelling/grammatical errors, or other no

problems that indicate lack of quality control?

Does the website offer sources for their information? no

If so, are these sources reputable and free of bias?

Task #2: Anatomy of a URL
Rank the following URLs in order of authority on a particular topic, with a 1 having the most
authority and a 4 having the least.
__4__ http://random.blogspot.com
_3___ http://www.random.com
__2__ http://yale.edu/~srandom
__1__ http://www.random.gov

Explain why you chose the ordering you did in complete sentences.
The random blog is last because blogs are typically more biased. I put
Random.com as 3rd because .com is less reliable that .gov and .edu.
Yale goes 2nd because it has .edu which means it's more credible than
.com. However .gov is the most credible, so I gave it 1st.

Task #3: Evaluating Other Websites for Credibility

Choose two of the websites below:
GMOs
http://www.saynotogmos.org/

https://factsaboutgmos.org/

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transge
nic-crops-and-732

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_t
he_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

Health/Medicine
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html

https://authoritynutrition.com/6-shocking-reasons-why-gluten-is-bad/

http://www.uwhealth.org/nutrition-diet/the-reality-behind-gluten-free-diets/31084

http://vaccine-injury.info/tenpenny.cfm#_

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/unapproved-but-effective-cancer-cures/

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/dna-vaccines-protect-monkeys-against-zi
ka-virus
Using a manner similar to what you did with step one, evaluate the credibility of the two
websites. Answer the questions below:

1. What is the first website you chose? Regarding the website and its usefulness in
researching a particular topic, do you believe the website is credible? You must discuss
your answer in complete sentences and give sufficient justification for your argument to
receive credit.

I chose https://factsaboutgmos.org/, however I do not think this website is credible. I don't

think it is credible because the publisher is not mentioned, there are a few grammar errors, and
many links do not work. Also the information is bias, so you can't be sure everything they're
saying is a fact and not an opinion.

2. What is the second website you chose? Regarding the website and its usefulness in
researching a particular topic, do you believe the website is credible? You must discuss
your answer in complete sentences and give sufficient justification for your arguments to
receive credit.

The second article I chose was

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe
_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html. I think this
site is credible because of a few reasons. One of those reasons is the fact that the
author is clearly visible, and so is the publisher. There are few if not no grammar errors.
Also the site has been updated recently and the information is proven by facts.