This paper critically evaluates the website DHMO.org as a case study in web source credibility assessment. Using established evaluation frameworks, the paper examines ten key criteria for assessing information sources — including authorship credentials, publication date, target audience, objectivity, and coverage — as well as additional strategies from the UC Berkeley Library's guide to evaluating web pages. The analysis finds that while DHMO.org cites expert researchers and maintains logical content flow, it falls short on several credibility measures: the author's credentials are unverifiable, the site is widely branded a hoax by outside reviewers, and its domain ownership raises reliability concerns. The paper concludes that DHMO.org cannot be considered a trustworthy source of objective information.
Thousands of websites have emerged in recent decades, and with so many web pages available, it can be difficult for the average user to determine which sites contain trusted and valid content. The relevance of developing website content evaluation skills cannot be overstated. In seeking to highlight some of the strategies for website content evaluation, this paper examines a real-world example: DHMO.org, a site devoted to the topic of dihydrogen monoxide.
When evaluating an information source, it is important to conduct a critical analysis using a structured framework. There are ten key things an individual ought to look for when evaluating an information source: the author, the publication date, the edition, the publisher, the journal title, the target audience, objective reasoning, coverage, writing style, and opinions voiced in evaluative reviews (University, 2014).
With regard to the author, the key consideration is whether the author has the necessary expertise in the topic under consideration. Although DHMO.org identifies the copyright owner of the webpage content, it does not provide the author's academic credentials. It is therefore difficult to establish the author's expertise on the subject. Publication date is also critical; as a general rule, one should limit research to materials published within the last ten years. DHMO.org appears to be updated on a regular basis, which is a positive sign. It should also be noted that revised material or sources that have had several editions released can be deemed more reliable, since multiple editions "may indicate that the work has become a standard source in the area and is reliable" (University, 2014).
One ought to also evaluate a source by matching their needs with the intended audience of the publication. An elementary source would be inappropriate for advanced academic work. The intended audience of DHMO.org appears to be members of the general public seeking answers to the controversy surrounding dihydrogen monoxide.
There is also a need to assess objective reasoning, considering whether the information presented is propaganda or fact, whether it is well-researched, and whether the author's perspective is impartial (University, 2014). At first glance, it is difficult to categorize the information on DHMO.org as either propaganda or fact, particularly given that no information about the author's credentials is provided. Upon closer examination, however, much of the information presented is well-researched, with findings from scientists such as Nathan Zohner cited to support claims.
When it comes to coverage, one should consider whether the material incorporates new information and conducts an extensive review of available literature. DHMO.org does incorporate the findings of other researchers in its various postings. Lastly, in addition to evaluating writing style with respect to the presentation and flow of content, one should also search for external reviews of the source. Although the flow of the website's content is logical, DHMO.org does not fare well when it comes to its reputation across the web — most sites that have reviewed it have branded it a hoax.
"UC Berkeley method and domain ownership analysis"
"Final verdict on DHMO.org's reliability"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.