Why it's important:

• Anyone can publish anything they wish on the Web.
• Unlike print resources, the Web does not have editors and fact-checkers.
• No standards exist to ensure accuracy on the Web.

Check questions:

• Is the information reliable?
• Is there an editor?

Examples:

Dog Island

Inaccuracy: This site claims there is an island off the coast of Florida that has been designated specifically for dogs. People can send their dogs to Dog Island to "live a natural, healthy and happy life, free from the stress and hardship associated with daily life among humans." This is not a real site!

Accurate Sources: Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi's Gulf Base project. Yes, there really is a Dog Island, but it is not inhabited by dogs. This site gives us some insight into what Dog Island really is. Internet fact-checkers also found that this site was indeed fake at Snopes.com. If you need further proof, the Dog Island website includes a disclaimer so we are left in no doubt that the authors of this site are simply having fun.

The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

Inaccuracies: Another fake page! But the point here is that people do intentionally place inaccurate information on the Web, either in jest in the case of Dog Island, or as a training tool, or for any other number of reasons. Notice the link to "The Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs," which does not take you to a new site, but rather a new page on this site.

Accurate Sources: Bettelheim, Matthew. "Tentacled Tree Hugger Disarms Seventh Graders." Inkling Magazine. Remember to double-check a source, especially if found on the Internet. While some of the pictures of the tree octopus look convincing, there are no entries for "Tree Octopus" anywhere in the Encyclopedia Britannica or Worldbook Encyclopedia. The above article tells us that this site is actually used as an Internet literacy training tool, although it began as a hoax.

Why it's important:

• Again, anyone can publish anything on the Web.
• The author's identity may not be easy to determine.
• The author may or may not have the proper credentials.
• Sponsorship may not be apparent.

Check questions:

• Is the page "signed"?
• Is the author qualified? An expert?
• Is the page sponsored? By a reputable institution?
• Is there a link with more information about the author and/or sponsor?
• What is the domain? (.gov, .edu, .com, .org)
• Is there a tilde (~) in the URL?

Examples:

GigaLaw.com

Authoritative Source: GigaLaw.com was founded by intellectual property, technology and Internet law attorney Douglas M. Isenberg to provide "legal information for Internet and technology professionals, Internet entrepreneurs and the lawyers who serve them." The site clearly lists the author, Doug Isenberg, whose credentials can be found, as well as contact information for his corporate sponsor, the Giga Law Firm.

Ancient Metallurgy

Authoritative? Notice the web address. There is a tilde (~) in the URL, which may mean this is a student or faculty member's personal site. There are sources listed at the bottom of the page, so we could use these to conduct our own research, at the very least. In order to find out who created this content, we must find the main page of the author.  There is a link at the top of the page, where we can find more information about David K. Jordan, the author. He is a professor of Anthropology, and is most likely an expert on the subject of Ancient Metallurgy, according to his credentials. Clicking on links such as "About Us" or "Contact Us" can give us information about authors and sponsoring organizations.

Wikipedia

See the highlighted portions of this article on Hendersonville, North Carolina from Wikipedia

Non-authoritative: Sites like Wikipedia, although packaged very nicely, operate outside of any established guidelines on authority. Basically, just about anyone can contribute and edit Wikipedia articles, which can result in the distribution of incorrect information. So if the culprit was able to add this ridiculous information, what else might he or she have added or changed that is not so obvious? And, if you check the "last modified" information at the bottom of the page, this page was last changed FOUR DAYS before this copy was made! So this erroneous information has been in place a least that long without being corrected.

See also this article on Jeremiah Smith from Wikipedia

Non-authoritative: This article states that Jeremiah Smith was born in 1759, but was somehow elected Governor of New Hampshire in 2009. Smith also died in 2042. Does Wikipedia tell the future? Clearly, this article has not been fact-checked.

Why it's important:

• Often the true goals and objectives of the author/sponsor are not stated.
• The Web is a virtual "soapbox," for any person or organization with an agenda.

Check questions:

• Does the information show a minimum of bias?
• Is the page designed to sway opinion?
• Can you detect political, ideological, or religious bias?
• Who is the target audience?
• Is there advertising on the page?
• Again, what is the domain? (.gov, .edu, .com, .org)

Examples:

Right Wing News

Biased: The title of the site says it all. Also keep in mind that many of the articles on the site are editorial in nature, another clue that this is not an objective site.

Open Left

Biased: Very similar format to the Right Wing site, but with opposing viewpoints. Again many, if not all, of the articles are editorial comments with news quotes interspersed within them.

FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact Check

More Objective: Examines the actual truth behind all of the politicking and postering. Visiting the "About Us" portion of any website may also give insight into the true objective of any organization, such as FactCheck.org.

Why it's important:

• Information may be out of date.
• Publication and revision dates are not always provided.
• If a date is provided it may refer to the date of original publication, the date it was first posted on the Web, or the date it was last updated.

Check questions:

• Is the page dated? With qualification? ("In place: July 1999," "Last revised: August 4, 1996")
• Is it apparent from the content? ("Buy the new Windows95!", "President Clinton commented from the Oval Office...")
• How current are the links? Have some expired or moved?

Examples:

Science Daily

Current: This site is bursting at the seams with information, and the articles on the main news page include today's date, implying the site is current. Looking at the About This Site link, we find that the site obtains information from Universities and other research organizations. The site also provides information about the editors, including their expertise and credentials.

Face-off: Netscape Navigator 9.0 vs. Firefox 2.0

Not Current: Official support of Netscape ended March 1, 2008, with Netscape making way for the Mozilla Firefox browser. This link may remain active for some time, but is certainly not current.
More Current: Netscape explains its decision to end support of their browser at this site: The Netscape Archive. Here, they provide download links to alternative browsers, including Firefox.

Why it's important:

• Web coverage often differs from print.
• Coverage can be difficult to determine at a glance.
• Who is the audience? Beginners? Experts? Professionals? Consumers?, etc.
• Is the information too simple? Too technical, or complicated?
• Some sites are just for fun.

Check questions:

• What topics are covered?
• What does this page offer that is unique?
• Who is the target audience?
• How in-depth is the material?

Examples:

Biography of Abraham Lincoln

Lack of Coverage: Although this page is from an authoritative source, the white house, and is probably accurate, it does not provide much coverage of the topic.

Broader Coverage: This site provides much more information and plenty of references to research.