Literacy in Information: Evaluating Internet Resources Jennifer Fendrick & Nicole Christensen RELIABLE UNRELIABLE AUTHORITY ACCURACY www.who.int/ In order to properly evaluate a website, the reader must take into consideration the authority, the accuracy, the objectivity and the currency of the website in mention. In order to test whether or not a site is sound and can be trusted, the following are vital tools that will insure its reliability. *Authority: The agency sponsoring this site is directly tied to the United Nations. It is an International corporation that offers internships to students and volunteer opportunities to people who want to make a difference. The mission of the organization is to raise awareness and provide accurate information about the top world health issues. *Accuracy: We decided to take a section of the website and try to find the same information in another site to prove the site is accurate or inaccurate. On the search engine bar at the top right corner of the page, we typed in “AIDS”. This link led to a page that had links to other pages on AIDS related topics. We found that the World Health Organization stated nearly 3.0 million deaths worldwide last year alone caused by AIDS/HIV. A site that agrees with the WHO in its findings stating that there were between 2.5-3.5 million is http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm *Objectivity: The website clearly has an agenda. The organization is in place to make the public aware of the issues we are facing in the world. The authors wish to raise awareness by educating the population through the website to hopefully prevent a number of illnesses in future generation. *Currency: The currency is up to date. The majority of the postings are within 1 or 2 years of the current date. The organization also continues to take surveys and collects data to keep their site reliable and up to date. • www.wikepedia.com • In order to properly evaluate a website the reader must take into consideration the authority, the accuracy , the objectivity and the currency of the website in mention. In order to test whether or not a site is sound and can be trusted the following are vital tools that will insure it’s reliability. • *Authority- “Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world. With rare exceptions, its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.” Anyone with a computer and internet can post to this site. In a way Wikipedia is like a Blog. A Blog (short for Web log) is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and anyone with internet access can post whatever they want.Therefore, Wikipediais deemed an unreliable site that is difficult to trust and receive valualbe information from. • *Accuracy- Information is sometimes inaccurate, misquoted, has missing or wrong historical dates and provides unfounded information. • *Objectivity- Depending on which article that is read, articles can be very bias. Due to the fact that the author can be anyone in the world, it may be fact opinion that the information is based on • *Currency- The currency is usually dated whenever the last time someone posted to an article. • -The information that is posted can be from any time frame or from any source. • -It is very difficult to assess the currency of a site like Wikipedia. L I F E L O N G L E A R N I N G OBJECTIVITY CURRENCY Conclusion: After looking through this site in it’s entirety, we found it to be a highly reliable source of information. It is not only a good source of information, but also a wonderful educational tool to teach world health issues and how they relate to everyday life. We like the site and have even used it in debates and quoted several of the statistics in papers and other projects. It is reliable, up to date, free of errors and in our opinion a fantastic site. The creators unbiased approach is essential for reliability. It is also secure and continuously updated each time the organization takes a new survey. All data that is collected is reported to the public. Conclusion: This site should never be used for reliable information for any type of report or information. Realizing that anyone can post whatever they want on the pages in the Wikipedia site makes it completely unreliable. Information taken off any pages contained in this site would be referencing unreliable sources and unreliable authors. This is not a true encyclopedia that has been researched by experts that can review the knowledge that was obtained and deemed credible. From what has been seen on this site, no one reviews the material people post. This leaves no room for objectivity, accuracy, or any type of authority from the potential authors.