Task: Work through the tutorial on Evaluating websites. Choose the best ’source’ or site from the three you used in the last task, then evaluate it according to the tutorial. Write an annotation for the source which could communicate to a reader both your ‘judgement’ of the site according to what you have learnt from the tutorial, and also the following information:
- the reliability and authority of the site / source / article
- the main ideas or subjects discussed in the article
- the purpose for which the site was written (this might include any apparent external interest. intellectual motivation or contextual information)
Log entry: My annotation:
- McBride, M. (2008). Select-all delete: Endangered Species? in Melanie McBride Online. Accessed on 24 May 2008 from http://melaniemcbride.net/2008/04/28/select-all-delete-an-endangered-species/.
- McBride suggests that new Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook and Twitter don’t give users sufficient control over their data. In particular, she argues that these applications are easy to sign up to, but that it’s often difficult to remove all of your information when you leave. mcBride also states that most social networking sites have a clause which states that they own the content you post on their site, which raises privacy concerns.
- According to the ‘About us’ page and a Google search, the author is a Toronto based writer and educator on technology, media and culture. McBride also works as a consultant on new media content production.
- The website appears to have 2 objectives – education and advocacy. The author has made various critical and thought-provoking posts over a number of years. She also acknowledges alternative views in comments posted.
- A Technorati search found 53 reactions by ‘authority’ and a del.icio.us search also indicated a range of links to the website.
- Overall, I found the website to be a useful source of views on our use of the Internet.
Task: Compare your final analysis and annotation with the material you saved for the last task, and think about these questions:
- In terms of your own future use, which ‘body’ of information (ie. the original ’snapshot’ of the site, or your own, annotated, analytical version) would be most useful to refer back to?
- In terms of external users (i.e. if you included this site as a hyperlink or resource on a website) which body of information would best help them judge if the site was useful or of interest to them?
Log entry: My reflections on evaluating the web:
- For my future use, I’d prefer to keep both versions – the snapshot to remind me of the post (particularly if I’d forgotten the author, title or subject matter), and the annotated version to refer back to my analysis of the article.
- The shorter ’snapshot’ version is more useful for tracking down information that I may forget at a later date.
- The longer version is a good reminder of my judgements of the article, and once recorded would save me having to do that research and analysis again. The ‘metadata’ recorded for the snapshot version doesn’t provide the same depth of analysis.
- The usefulness for an external user would depend on the purpose of the link.
- If the purpose of the hyperlink was to list various articles on a particular subject, without any judgement on their merit, the snapshot version would be preferable.
- The shortness of the snapshot version is a key advantage – as discussed below under WWW standards, most Internet users prefer concise content.
- If users are seeking links that discuss the merits of different articles and make informed judgements about their arguments and the credibility of the author, the longer annotated version would be preferred.
- If the purpose of the hyperlink was to list various articles on a particular subject, without any judgement on their merit, the snapshot version would be preferable.
