Dhmo.Org: Website Evaluation

¶ … DHMO.org Thousands of Websites have sprung up in the past. With numerous Web pages littering the Web, it could be difficult for an average user to figure out just which Website contains trusted and valid content. In that regard, therefore, the relevance of developing Website content evaluation skills cannot be overstated.

In seeking to highlight some of the strategies of Website content evaluation, this text concerns itself with a real life Website - http://www.dhmo.org/ From the onset, it is important to note that when it comes to Website content evaluation, there is need for an individual to conduct a critical analysis of information sources. Essentially, there are ten things an individual ought to look out for when evaluating an information source.

These include: the author, the publication date of the source, the edition, the publisher, the journal title, the target audience, objective reasoning, coverage, style of writing, and opinions voiced in evaluative reviews (Cornell University Library, 2014). With regard to the author, the key consideration should be whether or not the author has the necessary expertise in the topic under consideration. Although it identifies the copyright owner of the Webpage content, DHMO.org does not give the academic credentials of the author.

It is, therefore, difficult to establish the author's expertise on the subject at hand. The publication date is also critical. As a general rule, one should limit themselves to materials published within the last ten years. It appears that DHMO.org is updated on a regular basis. It should also be noted that revised material or one that has had several editions released could also be deemed more reliable.

Many editions, essentially, "may indicate that the work has become a standard source in the area and is reliable" (Cornell University Library, 2014). One also ought to evaluate a source by matching their needs with the intended audience of the publication. Needless to say, an elementary source would be inappropriate for advanced academic papers. The intended audience of DHMO.org appears to be members of the public seeking answers to the controversy that surrounds dihydrogen monoxide.

Next, there is also need for objective reasoning, with key considerations in this case being whether or not the information presented is mere propaganda or fact, whether the information is well-researched, whether the author's perspective is impartial, etc. (Cornell University Library, 2014). At first instance, it would be difficult to categorize information presented in DHMO.org as being mere propaganda or fact. This is particularly the case given that no information about the author's credentials is provided.

Upon closer look, however, most of the information presented is well researched; with findings of renowned scientists such as Nathan Zohner being cited to back up claims. When it comes to coverage, one should seek to find out whether or not the material presented incorporates new information, conducts an extensive review of available literature, etc. DHMO.org incorporates the findings of others in its various postings.

Lastly, in addition to evaluating the writing style (with regard to the presentation and flow of content), one also ought to search for reviews on the source. Although the flow of the Website content is logical, the DHMO.org Website does not pass the test when it comes to its reputation across the Web. Most of the sites that conducted a review DHMO.org branded it a hoax. In addition to the strategies highlighted above, there are other numerous strategies for evaluating Websites and the information that they present.

The UC Berkeley Library lists several questions one should ask when evaluating Web sources. Some of these include: what can the URL tell you? Is the information cited authentic? (UC Berkeley Library, 2012) Web material could be deemed reliable if it is backed up by reliable sources. Although the background of its author is not reliable, DHMO.org appears to be relying on expert opinion to develop its content. Some of the professionals prominently cited in this case include scientists Nathan Zohner and researchers Matthew Kulick and Patrick McCluskey.

When it comes to evaluating the URL, the key considerations on this front should be whether the.