•   Credibility
  
•   Accuracy
  
•   Reasonableness
  
•   Support

        1.      Credibility (Who said this? Will the author stand behind this information?)      

•   is the author or organization clearly stated ? if not,
    can you figure out from the URL or the domain
    where the page came from?
  
  
•   what qualifications does the author or organization
    have in the area?
    is the author affiliated with an educational institution,
    governmental agency, or other reputable organization
    related to the topic of the document?
  
  
•      is there  a real world postal address, telephone
    number and / or e-mail address where you can contact
    the author or a representative of the organization for
    more information?
  
  
•   Watch out for:
  
  

•  anonymity (no evidence of where
   page originated or who created its contents)
  
•  lack of quality control (illegible text
   or ugly appearance)
  
•  signs of careless preparation
  such as bad grammar or spelling mistakes




|| Top | Credibility | Accuracy | Reasonableness | Support ||

---

        2.      Accuracy (Where did this come from? Is it correct?)  

•   are sources given for factual and statistical information?
    (Remember: anyone can publish on the Web!)    
   
•   is the information clear and easy to follow?    
            
  
•   is there a clearly indicated date of publication? (a date
    on a website can mean the date first created, date placed
    on Web or date last updated or revised)
  
  
•    does the content of the work seem up-to-date to you?
    do the links lead to live websites?
      
  
•   is the work complete or still under construction?  if the
    information is not current, is it still valuable?
  
  
•   Watch out for:
  
  
•   no date anywhere on the document
  
•   vague generalizations ("Thousands of
    children are murdered every day in the
     United States.")
  
•   Old date on information known to change rapidly
  



|| Top | Credibility | Accuracy | Reasonableness | Support ||




---

       3.      Reasonableness (What kind of page is this?)

•   what is the domain? (.com, .gov, .edu, .org, etc.) 
  
  
•   what is the purpose of the page? is the author advocating
    a point of view, marketing  merchandise and / or services,
    educating or providing information, communicating news,
    entertaining or presenting personal information?
  
  
•   does the page present controversial information?
    are alternative points of view acknowledged or represented?
  
  
•   does the page contain advertising? if so, can you tell the
     promotional  material from the information?
  
  
•   Watch out for:
  
  
•   accusatory or profane tone or language
    ("stupid jerks")   
•   sweeping statements ("This is the most
     important idea ever conceived!")
  
•   conflict of Interest ("Welcome to the Eternity
    Tobacco Company Home Page. To read our
     report, "How Cigarettes Help You Live Longer,"
     click here.")
  
  
  || Top | Credibility | Accuracy | Reasonableness | Support ||
  

              4.     Support (Who else says this?)

•   does the author provide references or links to confirm the
    accuracy of the information?
  
  

•   does the author provide verifiable statistics to support
    conclusions?
  
  
•   is the topic covered comprehensively or superficially?
    does the author leave out important facts, qualifications,
    consequences, or alternatives ?
  
  
•   does the page offer new information or information not
    found anywhere else?
  
  
•    Watch out for:
  
  
  •   Numbers or statistics presented without
       an identified source for them
    
  •    Failure to present source documentation
       for facts when the discussion clearly calls
       for it
    
  •    Absence of other sources that present the
       same information or acknowledge that the
       same information exists (lack of
       corroboration)

  
  
  || Top | Credibility | Accuracy | Reasonableness | Support ||

---





Visit these websites to practice your evaluative skills:

•   http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/cat.html
    (Feline Reactions to Bearded Men)
  
  
•   http://www.martinlutherking.org/ 
    (Martin Luther King Jr.: A Historical Examination)
  
  
•  http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/index.htm
   (The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project)
  
  
• http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html
  (Essays on the Anti-Smoking Movement)
  
  
•   http://web.archive.org/web/20011031044058/http://oncolink.upenn.edu/cancer_news/1994/smoke_media.html
   (The Role of the Media in Tobacco Control)



•  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00030959.htm
  (The Role of the Media in Tobacco Control)

 

|| Top | Credibility | Accuracy | Reasonableness | Support ||


---


Even the best websites will not meet every criterion listed here, but using the
CARS list regularly will help you to become a critical user of information you find on the Internet.



Are you still uncertain about the quality of a particular website?

Ask a Reference Librarian to help you decide!

 

The website reliability criteria in this document are based
upon the CARS checklist presented by Robert Harris
of Southern California College on his website
"Evaluating Internet Research Sources"
http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm

---

 

E. Carol Dales
Library Bibliographic Instruction Coordinator
California State University, Dominguez Hills
cdales@csudh.edu
Ph: 310-243-2088

August, 2001