Evaluating the credibility of a web site

TO WELCOME Should I believe what this (or any) web site tells me? to STUDY evaluation some strategies to consider
FDA's recommendation links

There's more meno info on the internet then any one person can read! Some are good and others are pure trash.

I couldn't agree more. I've been doing a lot of searching lately to find resources for the asm web site and I think it would be helpful to give newbies some sort of rule of thumb method for assessing the credibility of a site. I will list *my* strategies here and welcome anybody else's views so that a useful guide can be put on the web site. I think it will be interesting to compare different criteria.

Thanks to Karen, who posted about metafind.com, this is the search engine I use most often for generalized searching. [Update Jan 2001 - I now much prefer google.com which has the added advantage of a "cached" page so that even if the site is down or moved, I have access to at least something]

I look closely at any URL and apply my very broad generalized criteria to it.

.edu (or .ac in UK and Australia, somethingu.ca in Canada) is educational, usually college or university so it *should* contain credible, unbiassed information. On the other hand if the URL also contains /~ it is probably the work of a single user and thus could be anything from total nutcase to obsessive creative genius on the cutting edge of science.... This /~ clue applies to all types of domain of course, not just .edu and I look to see if the owner offers credentials to justify his/her claim to be knowledgeable. However, I don't reject a site if the owner is upfront about not having qualifications.
.gov indicates government of some sort and as such should be reliable, but governments are notoriously *not* on the cutting edge and are naturally supercautious.
.com is a commercial site (or an independent ISP) and as such is likely to be trying to sell me something. The information on it may be highly biassed or totally reputable...
.net is an independent ISP and the quality of content is entirely speculative
.org is a not for profit organization and as such should be beyond reproach - but org's have been known to be a front for a commercial operation.

While I am looking at a site I immediately discard it if

it deals in absolutes rather than probabiliies ("all", "never" versus "most", "rarely")
it has extravagant claims or testimonials (e.g.there are no side effects, it is totally nontoxic, it never fails, in 2 days I had my life back..)
it *trashes* an alternative approach as opposed to rationally stating objections to it or attempting to disprove it.
it bases its claims on "studies" but does not give information which enables me to find them.
It flatly denies previous information which I have reason to believe is credible.

I think these methods should be useful and appeal to women of all worldviews, but worldview must also colour a person's opinion of a site. For myself, I view health in general and menopause in particular as a dynamic state which the body, as a self regulating organism, can deal with very nicely if given time and a little judicious medical assistance where necessary. This attitude leads me to immediately reject any site which implies that life after menopause is inevitably a downhill path to physical and mental feebleness unless I take elaborate precautions to fend it off by medication. That's a downer to me - and downers affect my health negatively.

Pat (Crone)

click here to give your input (use "site evaluation" as subject)

For an excellent detailed article visit
http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm
For a comprehensive bibliography visit http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~dreveskr/ews.html-ssi

FDA's office of Information Resources Management reports that although the Internet can be a reliable source of medical and health information, it is important to be aware that what is found there is only as good as the quality and integrity of the original information.

When determining the reliability of a Web site, the FDA recommends that consumers ask the following questions:

1. Who maintains the site? Government or University-run sites are among the best sources for scientifically sound health and medical information.

2. Is there an editorial board or another listing of the names and credentials of those responsible for preparing and reviewing the site's contents? Can these people be contacted by phone or through e-mail if visitors to the site have questions or want additional information?

3. Does the site link to other sources of information? No reputable organization will position itself as the sole source of information on a particular health topic.

4. When was the site last updated? Ideally, health and medical sites should be updated weekly or monthly.

5. Does the site charge an access fee? Many reputable sites with health and medical information offer access and materials for free.

The FDA encourages consumers who come across a suspected fraudulent offering on the Internet to alert them by email at: [email protected]

Source: FDA Consumer, June 1996

TO WELCOME

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws