Evaluation of Example #2

	Sign In Sign-Up

Elliot Seifert and Deborah Stout's Evaluation of Example Set #2
from the web site The Good, The Bad & The Ugly: or, Why It's a Good Idea to Evaluate Web Sources

Example #1 Antiretroviral Drug Interactions in the HIV-Infected Patient

Accuracy The information contained on this website seems to be very accurate. Although I am not a doctor the content seemed to be on target.

Authority The authors of the page both have the appropriate degrees to be considered knowledgable about the topic. There are a wide variety of scholarly sources used and referenced throughout the article which leads the reader to believe that the information is both authentic and correct.

Objectivity The paper is more informative than persuasive, it contains facts and lets the read come to their own conclusions.

Currency The paper, originally published in 1997, has a copyright date of 2000. One would assume that this was the last time that is was updated. It does list a phone and fax number, e-mail address, and website in case any questions were raised while viewing the site.

Coverage The site thoroughly covers the drug interactions it claims to discuss and does not seem to leave many open-ended questions for those viewers among the medical community.

Overall I feel that this website has a wealth of information about the topic. I think that it is too advanced for students and is a bit too technical to be of much use.

Example #2 HIV & AIDS: Rethinking AIDS Website

Accuracy Although the information seems that it SHOULD be accurate because it is documented by medical doctors, all of the quotes were before 1995. The web site was updated in June 2001, however, no new information seems to have been added.

Authority The creator of this webpage has a "technical and medical degree" but does not have MD next to his name. There are many people who have signed on to the virus myth group, many of whom are doctors.

Objectivity The author has a definite point of view - that AIDS is not a disease cause by the HIV virus.

Currency As mentioned above, the website was updated in June 2001 but no one has quoted any evidence later than 1995.

Coverage The website includes over 1200 other website references and 850 articles, all supporting the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS.

This article is very interesting due to what most doctors say about AIDS today. There seems to be a lot of loopholes in the articles and it is very biased. It is definitely a very radical viewpoint and disspells almost all other theories.

Example #3 The True But Little Known Facts About Women and AIDS

Accuracy Absolutely not!! It is all a joke, only to be found out at the bottom of the page. I must say, some of it was funny but if no one went to the bottom of the page and read the works cited (Maggie FYBBS, Donat-Belief A. Ward - get it yet?), horrendous rumors could be started!

Authority The author is clearly stated but then again, who knows if he is real?

Objectivity Maybe the author, because he is male, does not like women!

Currency The dates are all meant to be a joke as well. For example, the copywrite (yes, lots of misspellings too) is 1995 while some the works cited are from 1999.

Coverage No, only aspects pertaining to women.

Depending on your sense of humor, this site could be hilarious or completely offensive. It is definitely different!! It is clearly not useful information and could be misconstrued by students.

Elliot Seifert's EDUC632 Webpage
Deborah Stout's EDUC632 Webpage

Accuracy	The information contained on this website seems to be very accurate. Although I am not a doctor the content seemed to be on target.
Authority	The authors of the page both have the appropriate degrees to be considered knowledgable about the topic. There are a wide variety of scholarly sources used and referenced throughout the article which leads the reader to believe that the information is both authentic and correct.
Objectivity	The paper is more informative than persuasive, it contains facts and lets the read come to their own conclusions.
Currency	The paper, originally published in 1997, has a copyright date of 2000. One would assume that this was the last time that is was updated. It does list a phone and fax number, e-mail address, and website in case any questions were raised while viewing the site.
Coverage	The site thoroughly covers the drug interactions it claims to discuss and does not seem to leave many open-ended questions for those viewers among the medical community.

Accuracy	Although the information seems that it SHOULD be accurate because it is documented by medical doctors, all of the quotes were before 1995. The web site was updated in June 2001, however, no new information seems to have been added.
Authority	The creator of this webpage has a "technical and medical degree" but does not have MD next to his name. There are many people who have signed on to the virus myth group, many of whom are doctors.
Objectivity	The author has a definite point of view - that AIDS is not a disease cause by the HIV virus.
Currency	As mentioned above, the website was updated in June 2001 but no one has quoted any evidence later than 1995.
Coverage	The website includes over 1200 other website references and 850 articles, all supporting the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Accuracy	Absolutely not!! It is all a joke, only to be found out at the bottom of the page. I must say, some of it was funny but if no one went to the bottom of the page and read the works cited (Maggie FYBBS, Donat-Belief A. Ward - get it yet?), horrendous rumors could be started!
Authority	The author is clearly stated but then again, who knows if he is real?
Objectivity	Maybe the author, because he is male, does not like women!
Currency	The dates are all meant to be a joke as well. For example, the copywrite (yes, lots of misspellings too) is 1995 while some the works cited are from 1999.
Coverage	No, only aspects pertaining to women.