Evaluating our favorite web-sites

Quote:
Eagerly awaiting it.

Good info to look for, thanks for posting this. I get most of my information from books but I also check the references and the same questions for evaluating websites are good to apply to book references as well.

I wanted to get some clarification - I'm on the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) website constantly. Are we evaluting the site or the organization - or both?

For instance, with respect to confict of interest, almost 100% the AAP's corporate donors are pharmaceutical companies. Now I don't know if that applies to the funding to keep the website up and running, but it does apply to the organization itself.

Thanks!

ETA: I think it would be a good idea for people to put language such as: EVALUATION: [name of website or publication] in the title of the thread

Here is a site I'm quite fond of:
http://www.vaccinescience.org/index.html

I'll run through the analysis step by step:

1. The site has a clear statement of purpose and ownership: click on "about"

Quote:
2. Dates: All of the citations and reviews have dates. The site has not been updated lately. The "Newsmakers" on the home page are from 2004.

3. I didn't take the time to test all the links, but the random selection I tried all worked.

4. Reviews show an author. Quoted material is correctly cited, sometimes with links. It is easy to tell who said what, when, and where it was originally published. Reviews have notes, but no bibliography (however, reviews are usually not held to a scholarly standard, so this is not a huge problem).

5. No ads. No products being promoted.

Other comments: Includes pro-vaccine links along with anti-vaccine links. The reviews published on the site all criticize articles that support vaccinations.

Summary: A good site, but not current.

Nana

Quote:
The idea is to evaluate the way in which the site presents the organization (or the individual, or the cause). To evaluate the organization you would need to go off of the site and do further research. That would be a different thread! Good project, though.

Quote:
It is unusual for an organization to have a special funding pool just for their web-site, but for a major non-profit association, the web-site should have extensive information on their funding sources, or tell you where to find it.

Quote:
Great idea. I'll go back to my first "site" post and put the name in the title space.

Thanks for some really constructive questions and suggestions.
Nana

Quote:
Yes, I wanted to distill it down to a few essential points in the hopes that people would pop up a few web sites and look at where they are coming from.

I'll just grab another one at random and see what I see

Nana

http://www.know-vaccines.org/controversy.html

1. Who stands behind the site? A little hard to figure out. If you go to the tab that says "Know about us" you find their Mission, Goals and Services. At the bottom the copyright: © Copyright 2001 Vaccine Awareness of North Florida, Inc. tells you the name of the organization, but that is all.

So-so on "who" [I just found a description of the organization: it is on the contact page.] They just went up a couple of notches, but this information should be easy and obvious.

2. Dates, etc. Only dates are copyright dates at the bottom of some pages. It is impossible to tell if information has been updated recently. This is a particular problem because they have info on Florida statutes and exemptions. Out of date info could cause real problems.

3. Links, etc. I tried seven out of twelve links on their "KNOW Resource Links" tab. One failed, one gave a new address.

4. Quality of articles. No authors shown for any content. No footnotes for any article that I checked. There is a list of recommended reading, here:
http://www.know-vaccines.org/reading.html

5. No advertising, nothing being sold, so no obvious conflicts of interest.

Overall take. The site could be improved a lot by adding dates, adding authors for articles and/or citing sources for information mentioned. Running link checking software on a regular basis would also be a good idea. And telling who they are on the "Know about us" tab is essential.

This is not a site that a librarian would recommend. All of the information, including the state specific info is available on other, better organized sites.
Sorry

Nana

Specifically the Immunization Information portion of the site

www.aap.org

1. Who stands behind the site?

The AAP, an organization of 60,000 pediatricians.
© COPYRIGHT AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Blvd., Elk Grove Village, IL, 60007, 847-434-4000

2. Dates, etc.: I find that all immunization information is up-to-date and mirrors information contained on the CDC's official website. I went on the site today and it indicated that is was "modified" on June 6, 2005. When information is new, a flashing yellow icon with the words "NEW" appears next to the information on the "Immunization Information" homepage.

3. Links, etc.: There is a disclaimer: *Links, organizations, information and resources contained within this site do not constitute an endorsement by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP is not responsible for the content of these resources.

There is a link of web resources for parents; however, each organization is pro-immunization. VAERS is actually listed though.

There is a link for journals and periodicals such as:
Pediatrics
AAP News
AAP Grand Rounds
NeoReviews
Pediatrics in Review

4. Quality of articles. Authors and footnotes are shown on articles. Articles I have come across are from respected, peer reviewed journals.

5. There is no advertising. Products sold on the site:

Pediatric Infectious Disease Care Pak
Red Book®, 26th Edition, Softcover and Multimedia Set
Visual Red Book on CD-ROM, 2003 Edition
Red Book 2003, Hardcover
Red Book® for PDA 2003 Edition
Managing Infectious Diseases in Child Care and Schools

Potential conflicts: The organization itself receives a considerable amount of money, the overwhelming majority from the pharmaceutical industry.

Overall take: I think the site format is superior and easy to navigate. The search function is very helpful. Type in anything - and you will find a link to one of the journals or periodicals. I use this site quite a bit.

http://www.aap.org/donate/fcfhonorroll.htm

The big spenders receive the honor of having their logo's splashed on the page. The other pharma's are listed in black underneath.

You'll notice that McDonald's and PepsiCo donate as well . . . two other companies that like to poison children.

Quote:
I guess to them money is money, but you would think that ethically they would not take money from companies that have such unhealthy products and specifically target children in their advertising. Well, at least I would hope...[sigh].

Quote:
Feel free to share my review with them. You can mention that I just picked them out of a Google search with no intention of giving anyone in particular a hard time

If anyone reading this has a web-site that they would like to have reviewed, just post it and I'll go have a look. Free professional librarian service!

Nana

Quote:
Oh my G_d!

Road to h*ll paved with good intentions! I suppose somewhere along the line they meant well.

Nana