partnereval.html

Partner Evaluation of Sites
by Janine Morgan and Tracey Lundy

After reviewing the following three sites, the most reliable site is the first site, the Workers' Rights Consortium. The site provides current information and includes members from different factions of the sweatshop movement. The second source, Sweatshop Overview, provides an interesting analysis but was written by a student. Although the information provokes thought, it is not an unbiased overview of the struggle over sweatshops and is not current. The last site is biased as well. Transparency 101 is clearly a site created to promote Nike. A student can even purchase products. Although the information is biased and cannot be accepted as true, biased articles can prove invaluable when arguing the tactics utilized by both sides of a movement, but overall, the site cannot be used as a credible research source.

Site 1: Evaluation of Workers Rights Consortium


Accuracy	The copyright is for 2001, and the latest press release is from June 5, 2002. It links to a factory disclosure database and a historical search page to look for older records. The organization does admit that the WRC cannot guarantee the accuracy of each factory listing primarily because it depends upon the information provided by the factories, but overall, the site appears reliable .
Authority	It does not list one specific person as the author, but all rights are reserved by the Workers Rights Consortium. The site does list the members of the WRC Governing Board, including representatives from University Caucus, Independent Labor Rights experts, and Representatives of United Students Against Sweatshops. It also provides an email address to contact the organization. Because the organization consists of members from the above mentioned parties, it appears to be more reliable. In addition, the site provides links to factory evaluations for the public to view as first-hand information. The publicity releases, however, are primarily editorials that are obviously subjective by nature.
Objectivity	The primary objective appears to be providing information to interested parties. The WRC 's mission claims to provide factual information on behalf of the workers, the universities, and the public.
Currency	The last article submitted in the press room was from June 5, 2002, and the site is updated weekly.
Coverage	The links give access to factory assessment reports that appear to be primary documents. However, the press room editorials listed support workers' rights and criticize sweatshops.

Site 2: Evaluation of Sweatshop Overview

Accuracy	The author provides a bibliography at the end of the article. However, many of the sources are interviews, and very few links are provided to check the sources.
Authority	The author's name is B. J. Bullert. No credentials are provided, but he does include an email address. After a URL search, we discovered that this site was published as part of the Center for Communication and Civic Engagement at the University of Washington. This organization encourages student-designed educational opportunities. We also checked the U of W directory and found that the author had graduated from this university. Because he was a student, we would caution use of this as a reliable research source, although his argument seems credible.
Objectivity	The article presents the author's view of the effects and the dynamics of strategies used by those who criticize sweatshops. His thesis initially avoids a direct attack on pro or anti-sweatshop organization and focuses on the movement. Toward the end of the article, the argument takes a different path and becomes more personal. He then reveals personal involvement and his sympathy for the workers.
Currency	This article is just that--an article. It is not a site that appears to change or to be updated. The sources listed date to April and May 2000. New information on this topic has not been included.
Coverage	The article provides examples such as Nike and Kathie Lee Gifford to support his idea that the movement focuses on public figures and companies as opposed to the actual workers who are suffering. The author also analyzes the changing role of the media in this movement. These arguments are thought-provoking; however, the article does not include recent events.

Site 3: Evaluation of Transparency 101

Accuracy	This site is an advertisement for the Nike company. The information provided presents Nike as a philanthropical organization that cares about people.
Authority	The site represents the entire company and was not written by one person. There are email addresses, contact numbers, and addresses for people who wish to contact the company.
Objectivity	The site is not objective. When we used the search to look up workers' rights, the articles provided were clearly biased. The headlines addressed topics such as how Nike justified wages, how Nike started educational programs for workers, and how committed Nike is to quality working conditions.
Currency	The site is updated consistently. There are articles dated June 19, 2002 and June 20, 2002. The site also has a copyright for 2002.
Coverage	The coverage is clearly biased and therefore unreliable but could be a good tool for a student researching propaganda.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws