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) No

Is there an editor? No

Publisher

Is it obvious who published the site? Yes

Could they have an agenda in published the information? Yes

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? Yes

Quality of Information

Is the information that is published timely? No

Is the website free of dead links, spelling/grammatical errors, or other Yes

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? No

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.

I chose blogspots as the least credible because anybody can make one. Sites ending in .com
are harder to make, but anybody can make one. I chose .edu websites as the second most
credible because only universities and schools can publish them. I chose .gov websites as the
most credible because the government has the funding they need to carry out as much research
as they want.

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-
transgenic-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_pand_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-
zika-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.
The first website I chose was http://cdc.gov. I believe it is credible due to the extensive research
they conduct about vaccines and other medical phenomenons. It is also conducted by a
government agency, which requires a lot of education to be a contributor.

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 argument to
receive credit.

The second website I chose is nature.com. I believe this website is very credible, despite the
.com ending in the URL. It lists a wide variety of references, shows citations, and gives
some author information.