Evaluating Web
Resources
Worksheet
Use this worksheet to
help you evaluate the best sites that support your position (PRO) and that
oppose your position (CON) sites by answering the following questions:
1. Best “PRO” site: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3520.htm
Why did you select this as the “BEST” Pro site?
I selected this site because it gives a lot of detailed information about PGD, including history, definition, and diagrams for ages, ect.
Author--Who wrote the page? With what groups is s/he affiliated? Is a bio or resume available?
The author is JJ Marik, MD. He is with the UCLA School of Medicine, and is the director of the Tyler Medical Clinic. There was a link to the Tyler Medical Clinic, with his biography listed.
Sponsor/Publisher--Who's paying for this site? Does that influence the reliability of the information?
The sponsor is WebMD. To me, this shows it is a reliable source because it is a well-known and valid company.
Purpose--Is the author trying to inform, persuade, entertain, or sell you something?
The author is informing the reader about PGD.
Accuracy--Are the arguments supported by research? Is there a bibliography?
The arguments are well researched and the site has a fairly detailed bibliography.
Timeliness--When was the information published? When was the site last revised?
The information was first published in 1996, and was revised in 2007.
Suitability--Is the information too general or too technical? Is it directly related to your topic?
The information seems to be neither too general nor too technical. It is very user friendly. It is also specifically related to my topic.
Uniqueness--Is this information special or exclusive, or is it general information available anywhere?
The information seems to be a good mix of general and specific information. It gives explanations for all the parts people may not know or understand.
2. Best “CON” site: http://www.infertile.com/treatmnt/treats/pgd.htm
Why did you select this as the “BEST” CON site?
I selected this site because it gives a good mix of pro as well as con sides to the debate.
Author--Who wrote the page? With what groups is s/he affiliated? Is a bio or resume available?
Sponsor/Publisher--Who's paying for this site? Does that influence the reliability of the information?
The Sponsor/Publisher is St Luke’s Hospital. It shows the information is from a valid resource.
Purpose--Is the author trying to inform, persuade, entertain, or sell you something?
The author is informing others.
Accuracy--Are the arguments supported by research? Is there a bibliography?
There was a bibliography I could click on for more information, and the site seems well researched.
Timeliness--When was the information published? When was the site last revised?
The information was first published in 1997 and was last revised in 2006
Suitability--Is the information too general or too technical? Is it directly related to your topic?
The information is general, but I don’t think it is too general, and is related to my topic.
Uniqueness--Is this information special or exclusive, or is it general information available anywhere?
It has some good pictures and such that may not be available other places.