1705135530
12.3 Evaluating Websites3
1705135531
1705135532
Websites can be a handy source of information for debaters, but debaters should learn to evaluate a website before using that information to build an argument. When evaluating a website, debaters need to consider authority, bias, accuracy, currency, scope, and relevance or usability. Sometimes the information needed to evaluate a website is not as easy to find as it would be for a printed resource. However, as a rule, debaters should apply the same level of evaluation to websites as they would to printed resources.
1705135533
1705135534
Authority refers to the author’s or publisher’s credentials. Who is responsible for the website’s content? Consider whether an individual has authority in the topic area—where does the person work? What credentials does the person hold? Has the person published other material on this topic? What do other people have to say about the person’s work? Do external reviews exist that discuss what the person has written? Sometimes websites are maintained by organizations rather than by individuals. In that case, consider the type of organization–is it a professional or trade association? A lobbying organization? A governmental or educational institution? A commercial business? Is there an “About” page that describes the purpose of the website? Domain name extensions (.com, .cn, .edu, .gov, .org, and so on) can often provide clues to the type of organization, which can lead to clues about potential bias.
1705135535
1705135536
Bias refers to the point of view and degree of objectivity expressed by the author. Is the website sponsored by a corporation or other entity? Is the website promoting or selling a product? Does the website advocate a particular political viewpoint? If advertising is included on the website, does the information appear to be influenced in any way by the advertisers? Does the author have any inherent bias (for example, a conflict of interest)? If biases exist, are they clearly stated? What kinds of websites are linking to this website, and what might that say about potential bias?(The “link” feature in many search engines can be used to find this information.)4
1705135537
1705135538
In addition to authority and bias, debaters must evaluate accuracy. Accuracy refers to the reliability and correctness of the information. Since debaters should avoid using inaccurate information to advance their arguments in a debate, this is one of the most important elements to evaluate. Is the information on the website correct? Consider whether the website lists the sources of its information (perhaps in a bibliography), whether the information is fact or opinion, and whether the information can be verified from external, independent sources.
1705135539
1705135540
Currency is related to issues of accuracy. It refers to the date of publication and/or the time period covered by the information on the website. Is the information up to date? Do links work? When was the website created, and when was it last updated? Does the page update automatically on a daily basis, or is it manually updated when information is added or revised? A regularly updated website is not inherently more reliable than one which is updated less frequently, but this information may be important when researching some topics. Debaters must ask themselves if currency of the information they are trying to find matters.
1705135541
1705135542
Scope refers to the coverage area of the website. It can relate to currency that can be thought of as chronological scope. Consider whether the website is directed at a particular audience (for example, a website intended for pregnant mothers, or a website aimed at educators in China). If there is a printed equivalent to the information, does the website offer the same information? Is the website (or an individual document available through the website) a primary, secondary, or tertiary resource? Primary resources contain firsthand accounts of information or original data. An example of a primary resource is the text of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(1996). Primary resources require debaters to use the information on the website to draw their own conclusions. Secondary resources are derived from primary resources and the description or analysis of that information. An example of a secondary resource is a policy analysis report published in 1999 by Kathleen C. Bailey for the Cato Institute, “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits” (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/ pa330.pdf). Debaters may need to compare and contrast secondary resources to get a complete understanding of an issue and to ensure that they are familiar with all sides of the topic. Tertiary resources are based on secondary resources rather than on original research; occasionally they are written by staff writers rather than by experts in the field. While useful for presenting overviews of topics, tertiary resources may not have the same depth of information that primary and secondary resources do. Encyclopedias (including Wikipedia) are often considered tertiary resources. Debaters may begin learning about a topic through tertiary resources, but will be able to make more compelling arguments by using primary and secondary resources.
1705135543
1705135544
Finally, debaters must evaluate a website’s relevance. Relevance, sometimes called usability, refers to the value of the information for a researcher’s needs. Consider whether the information is appropriate—can the information be understood easily, or is the website intended for use by experts in the field? Is the website well organized so that information can be located quickly? Does the website cover the topic adequately, or are there obvious omissions in content?
1705135545
1705135546
As an example, suppose that debaters arguing that nations should reduce their dependence on nuclear energy need to find expert testimony to support that claim. In order to anticipate arguments from the opposing team, debaters need to research both this claim and the opposite claim (that nations should increase their dependence on nuclear energy). Debaters might want to compare information from the websites of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the World Nuclear Association, China Atomic Energy Authority, the Sierra Club, the World Association of Nuclear Operators, Greenpeace, the Council on Foreign Relations, ProPublica, and others. By evaluating the authority, bias, accuracy, currency, scope, and relevance for each website, debaters will be better prepared to defend their own arguments and to refute their opponents’ arguments.
1705135547
1705135549
12.4 Summary
1705135550
1705135551
In summary, preparation is essential for a successful debate. Debaters need to be familiar with effective research strategies so that they can find and evaluate the information needed to construct their arguments. Debaters must develop good research habits, know how to select appropriate information resources, learn to search for information, and know how to evaluate both the information and its source.
1705135552
1705135553
总结起来，准备工作对于辩论的成功至关重要。辩手们要熟悉有效的研究方法才能查找并评估出对构建论点有益的信息。辩手们要养成良好的研究习惯，知道如何选择恰当的信息资源，学习查找信息的正确方法，还要知道如何评估信息本身及其来源。
1705135554
1705135556
12.5 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 12
1705135557
1705135558
Check your memory and comprehension by describing or defining these key terms and concepts:
1705135559
1705135560
· Research
1705135561
1705135562
· Information sources
1705135563
1705135564
· Search strategy
1705135565
1705135566
· Keywords
1705135567
1705135568
· Truncation
1705135569
1705135570
· Authority
1705135571
1705135572
· Bias
1705135573
1705135574
· Accuracy
1705135575
1705135576
· Currency
1705135577
1705135578
· Scope
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.705135529e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]