Module Four Evaluating the Web

Website Evaluation Process
(Taken from http://gateway.lib.ohio-state.edu/tutor/les1/index.html)

Purpose Determine the purpose of the material; to inform, persuade or advocate?

Author Find out about the author. What are their qualifications, education, proffesion?

Content Does the author presten a 'biased view', does the author have a vested interest in the topic? Look for material providing a "balanced view".

Coverage Compare sites of the same topic. Which has the best coverage (including the most qualified authors and balanced views)

Currency If the information you seek need to be the latest on a topic, be sure to check when the material was published &/or updated.

Recognition Has the site been referenced by other sites or mentioned by other authors/institutions writing on the same or related topics?


Choose your best 'source' or site from the three you used in the last task, then evaluate it according to the tutorial described above.

Site: RCCS, http://rccs.usfca.edu/intro.asp

Purpose: Taken from site: " The Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies is an online, not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to research, teach, support, and create diverse and dynamic elements of cyberculture. "

Author: As this is a 'center', there is no one author. David Silver is listed as the centers founder. The site offers lists its advisory board, the majority most of whom are university educated/employed in the technological field.

Content: An introduction to Cyberculture and Cyberculture education Most importantly this site contains a 'featured links' page offering related links to research reviews and statistics.

http://rccs.usfca.edu/links.asp

Coverage: As the RCCS is a non-profit, non political center for studies and its links are numerous and varied, it's coverage is broad, balanced and unbiased.

Curreny: Some of the studies and articles available on RCCS featured links date back to the early 1990's but many are current and updated.

Recognition: I haven't noticed RCCS mentioned elsewhere but I wasn't really looking. In the little time I have left for this unit, I'll make a note if I see it referenced on another site.

In your own words, write an annotation for the source which could communicate to a reader both your 'judgement' of the site according to what you have learnt from the tutorial, and also the following information:

• the reliability and authority of the site / source / article


• the main ideas or subjects discussed in the article


• the purpose for which the site was written (this might include any apparent external interest, intellectual motivation or contextual information)

Resource Center for Cyberculture Studies. (2007). Introducing Cyberculture. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from http://www.rccs.usfca.edu/intro.asp

The RCCS website was developed in 1996 by David Silver. Silver is a professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco. The sites advisory board are all University educated and some are employed at Universities across the US. The RCCS is a non-profit organization that researches, teaches, supports, and helps to create diverse and dynamic elements of cyberculture. The purpose of this site is to provide an overview of cyberculture, a description of who the RCCS is and what they do. The highlight of this website is the featured links page providing useful links to a variety of internet/ technology and culture/society sites. As a one stop site for research reviews and data, RCCS is very useful. If the information required is not found in the link itself, there may be references to other sites found inside featured links.

Compare your final analysis and annotation with the material you saved for the last task, and think about these questions (you may wish to discuss these questions in your group)

• In terms of your own future use, which 'body ' of information (ie. the original 'snapshot' of the site, or your own, annotated, analytical version) would be most useful to refer back to? I think they are both similiar. The snapshot is a little more comprehensive. My annotated version is easie to overview and has the site info listed at the top. I'd probably use both depending on the purpose for which the info was required but I'd favour my annotated version.
• In term of external users (i.e. if you included this site as a hyperlink or resource on a website) which body of information would best help them judge if the site was useful or of interest to them? Given the information the tutorial provided regarding how website visitors read web sites, I'd use an edited version of my annotation and highlight key words.