valutazione delle risorse telematiche per la ricerca storica
Guido Abbattista
Dipartimento di Storia e Storia dell’Arte, Università di Trieste
(Napoli-Firenze, maggio 2001)
[testo provvisorio redatto a scopo di supporto didattico e documentazione]
Indice:
HDS - Guidelines for Documenting Data
Trudi Jacobson- Laura Cohen, University at Albany (1996)
Harris, Vanguard University, Southern California (1997)
Ciolek, WWW-VL, Canberra (1997)
Grassian, Ucla (1999)
Boretti, AIB (2000)
Ci sono almeno due modi principali di accertare la qualità delle risorse digitali, che qui cercherò di trattare separatamente. Una che potremmo definire “ex post”, ovvero “sul lato dell’utente professionale” e l’altra che potremmo definire “ex ante”, ovvero “sul lato del produttore”. La prima serve a stabilire se una risorsa già esistente risponde a criteri prestabiliti di qualità. La seconda serve a far sì che un progetto e il relativo lavoro di creazione di risorse digitali osservi alcune regole predeterminate intese ad assicurarne la qualità.
Comincerò con il primo caso, che è quello che più si avvicina alle esigenze di chi intende adoperare la rete per reperire risorse da utilizzare nello studio, nella ricerca o nell’insegnamento storici.
Prima, però, è opportuno dire che la bontà di una risorsa si stabilisce innanzitutto dalla qualità del materiale che essa contiene e che tale qualità non ha un valore assoluto, ma è certamente relativa al tipo di comunicazione che si intende effettuare, al pubblico che si vuole raggiungere, agli scopi che ci si prefiggono.
Questo non significa ammettere l’inevitabilità del relativismo. Nella rete purtroppo è presente una grande quantità di informazione di natura storica genericamente definibile ‘divulgativa’, ma in realtà dipendente da idee deteriori circa la natura del sapere storico. Sulla base di un rapido esame di alcuni dei principali siti a carattere storico-divulgativo, potremmo perfino provare a indicarne le tipologie, che non differiscono troppo da quello che già si trova nel mondo della carta stampata. Potremmo così distinguere siti nei quali ci troviamo di fronte a:
http://www.historychannel.com/historyiq/index.html
In tutte queste forme, la storia viene di fatto filtrata attraverso comportamenti individuali, trattata alla stregua di una merce e ricondotta ad esperienze quali soppesare, acquistare, accumulare, collezionare oppure contemplare, scoprire, spiare, sperimentare emotivamente, svagarsi, evadere: in un contesto di questo tipo, ciò che offre al singolo la possibilità di stabilire un legame col passato è l’atto dell’acquisto, della scoperta, dell’intrattenimento, oppure è la dimensione della parentela (History Net http://www.historynet.com/; History Channel http://www.historychannel.com/; History Channel International http://www.historyinternational.com/ ).
Per quanto possa essere rispettabile (o vendibile), sicuramente questo modo di stabilire un rapporto con la storia – e ‘vivere’ o ‘rivivere’ il passato – poco ha a che fare con la conoscenza storica come forma di sapere critico elaborato mediante procedure analitiche e di ricostruzione. Questo genere di risorse resteranno dunque completamente al di fuori della nostra considerazione: o meglio, sono esattamente quelle la cui particolare natura dovrebbe immediatamente emergere mediante l’applicazione di una rigorosa griglia di valutazione.
Più delicata è la questione dell’uso politico e propagandistico della storia così come è riscontrabile nell’informazione telematica. Si tratta di un campo molto ampio di indagine, che si presterebbe a scoperte e riflessioni estremamente interessanti su come la telematica – secondo l’impressione che ho tratto dalle osservazioni che ho potuto fare – abbia potenziato l’uso strumentale del sapere storico. Qui non posso che accennarvi, rinunciando ad analizzare singoli esempi, solo per dire come anche in questo caso siamo di fronte a un genere di uso dell’informazione storica che esula dalla nostra problematica: è la risorsa genuinamente informativa, rispondente allo scopo esclusivo di trasmettere conoscenza e non messaggi di tipo diverso, quella alla quale ci rivolgiamo e che l’impiego di procedure di valutazione come quelle di cui sto per parlare dovrebbe permettere di far emergere dalla massa dell’informazione esistente in rete.
[Esempi :
Sikhismo: http://www.sikhs.org/topics.htm
I Maratti: http://members.tripod.com/~Shivshahi/index.html
Nazionalismo indù: http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/
Storia della Serbia: http://www.serbia-info.com/enc/history.html
by Government of the Republic of Serbia
American Memory http://rs6.loc.gov/]
Un’ultima premessa da fare è che dalla presente analisi sono escluse intenzionalmente procedure di valutazione ex post pure molto importanti che sono quelle che teoricamente dovrebbero attuare le guide alle risorse di rete e i motori di ricerca d’area. Sono entrambi settori molto delicati, nei quali ancora disponiamo di strumenti non del tutto soddisfacenti e certamente suscettibili di miglioramento. Di questo mi sono occupato in altra sede e perciò a quell’intervento mi permetto di rimandare.
L’impiego di procedure metodiche basate su griglie di valutazione può essere utile, specie se si tratta di identificare le caratteristiche esteriori delle risorse telematiche. Evidentemente non può che avere una funzione preliminare rispetto ad un’analisi di contenuto rivolta ad accertare il merito della risorsa dal punto di vista della quantità, attendibilità, fondatezza, serietà, completezza, verificabilità e leggibilità dell’informazione fornita. In particolare, una corretta valutazione non potrà certamente prescindere dagli specifici problemi legati ad un particolare ambito di ricerca storica, ossia la tipologia delle fonti impiegate, le loro caratteristiche, le modalità della loro raccolta e presentazione. Nella valutazione di risorse telematiche non è possibile che l’accertamento di requisiti specifici legati alla natura telematica del materiale metta in ombra quei requisiti che sono necessari in qualsiasi lavoro di ricerca scientifica.
Per una prima approssimazione, comunque, il ricorso ad una griglia di valutazione può dimostarsi utile, poiché offre una procedura standard rivolta a verificare alcuni requisiti di base. È noto come le liste di controllo messe a punto da diversi soggetti, perlopiù in ambiente bibliotecario, siano numerose. Tra queste, la più conosciuta e diffusa è forse quella elaborata da Janet E. Alexander e Marsha Ann Tate, della Wolfgram Memorial Library della Widener University School of Law, PA, Usa. È stata redatta la prima volta nel 1996, più volte riveduta e ampliata e ha dato origine anche alla pubblicazione di un volume cartaceo, Web Wisdom. How to Evaluate and Create Information Quality on the Web, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, Mahwah, NJ, 1999.
Ne propongo una sintesi, con particolare riferimento alla lista di controllo relativa alle pagine di contenuto informativo, e una serie di integrazioni pensate appositamente per la valutazione delle più comuni risorse di interesse storico che sia dato incontrare sul Web.
Si può infine precisare che in buona misura questi criteri sono applicabili – oppure ne sono proposte varianti in modo da renderli adatti – anche alla valutazione di risorse digitali su supporto ottico.
Non si tratta, come è noto, di una griglia unica ed esclusiva. Ne esistono molte altre, soprattutto in lingua inglese, come mostrato dalla documentazione riportata in appendice. In italiano si può citare la griglia elaborata da Elena Boretti (maggio 2000 http://www.aib.it/aib/contr/boretti1.htm) sulla base della griglia di Whittaker (Kenneth Whittaker, Systematic evaluation: methods and sources for assessing books, London, Clive Bingley, 1982), nella quale cui i parametri fondamentali di valutazione delle fonti cartacee sono: autorevolezza, progetto, contenuto, struttura, impaginazione, manifattura, posizionamento.
2) La griglia riportata al punto 1) è frutto di una integrazione di quella predisposta da Alexander & Tate in funzione della valutazione delle risorse telematiche in generale, di cui le stesse Alexander & Tate propongono la seguente classificazione tipologica:
La metodica di valutazione di Alexander & Tate prevede innanzitutto l’individuazione di una serie di quesiti comuni a ogni tipologia di risorsa; e in secondo luogo la puntualizzazione di quesiti specifici per ciascuna variante tipologica. Nel contesto di una discussione sulle risorse di argomento storico, la variante che interessa è quella “informativa”, per la quale si è cercato però di individuare ulteriori variabili pertinenti all’informazione di contenuto storico. Di qui l’elencazione di una serie di quesiti relativi ai due criteri di valutazione supplementari (utilizzabilità e trasparenza) che abbiamo aggiunto ai cinque della griglia Alexander & Tate.
3) La lista di controllo dei requisiti di base (“Checklist of Basic Elements”)
L’uso delle liste di controllo ha una ragione pratica e una finalità didattica. Permette all’utente di rispondere con un sì o un no a un elenco di domande brevi e semplici e quindi di fare un bilancio e una graduatoria in base alla risposta prevalente. Ogni elenco di domande che preveda sia domande articolate sia risposte non univoche tende ad essere di minore efficacia. Tuttavia, ogni tentativo di valutazione approfondita delle singole risorse e soprattutto del patrimonio complessivo di risorse che vengono sviluppandosi nelle diverse tipologie deve evitare di cadere in eccessiva schematicità. Ciò significa minore utilità immediata e pratica, ma maggiore capacità interpretativa.
Le procedure mediante liste di controllo, inoltre, svolgono la funzione di strumenti di valutazione ex post, ossia si impiegano per giudicare il valore delle risorse una volta prodotte e reperite nella rete. Un’altra e distinta metodologia di valutazione si è però venuta sviluppando: una metodologia che potremmo chiamare ex ante, ovvero sul versante del produttore, anziché, come nel caso delle liste di controllo, sul versante dell’utente. In altre parole, negli ambienti professionali della ricerca, in particolare quelli impegnati nella riflessione sul rapporto tra IT e studi umanistici, è da tempo maturata la consapevolezza che la diffusione delle tecnologie informatiche e telematiche applicate è così grande che è necessario mettere a punto procedure rigorose di creazione delle risorse digitali, cioè che siano ispirate e guidate dal rispetto di standard operativi rivolti a produrre buoni prodotti, prodotti in grado di resistere saldamente a qualsiasi procedura di valutazione ex post da parte di terzi. Si tratta di un’esigenza che, del resto, non deriva solo dal desiderio di disporre di buone risorse, ma anche da quello – specifico – di uscire indenni dalle procedure di valutazione che vengono generalmente impiegate dai nuclei di valutazione incaricati di decidere l’assegnazione o la prosecuzione di finanziamenti a favore di progetti.
La messa a punto di regole di creazione a prova di valutazione può avvenire in modo spontaneo oppure in modo programmatico e organizzato. Un esempio del primo caso è dato da quello che potremmo chiamare lo sviluppo di un comune senso critico nei confronti delle risorse digitali, che dovrebbe emergere sia in conseguenza della generalizzazione dell’impiego di tali risorse sia per effetto di un apposito lavoro critico condotto mediante recensioni dalle pagine (cartacee e telematiche) di riviste specialistiche (es. Journal for Multimedia History, Journal of the Association for History and Computing, varie altre riviste elettroniche, Memoria e ricerca).
Un esempio del secondo tipo è dato dal lavoro di organizzazioni aventi la finalità istituzionale di coordinare, assistere e guidare la creazione di risorse digitali, preoccupandosi di fornire anche la consulenza sulle migliori modalità di realizzazione di certi progetti di digitalizzazione. A questo proposito sono almeno due le esperienze da ricordare per quanto riguarda l’ambito storico e letterario.
La prima è quella della TEI, che dal 1994 cura e sviluppa la problematica teorica e didattica della codifica testuale e che in materia ha prodotto un importante e voluminoso manuale intitolato Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, edited by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen and Lou Burnard, TEI P3 Text Encoding Initiative Chicago, Oxford, Copyright (c) 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994 ACH, ACL, ALLC, 16 May 1994, Revised Reprint, Oxford, May 1999. Il Tei Consortium è raggiungibile alla URL:
mentre il testo della guida può essere visto e scaricato in vari formati alla URL:
http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines2/index.html
La seconda è rappresentata dalle AHDS Guides to Good Practice, messe a punto dall’Arts and Humanities Data Service britannico. Tra queste, particolarmente importanti per gli scopi della produzione di risorse digitali per la ricerca storica sono le due guide Digitising History. A Guide to Creating Digital Resources from Historical Documents e Creating and Documenting Electronic Texts. A Guide to Good Practice, entrambe disponibili gratuitamente all’indirizzo:
Si tratta di strumenti di grande utilità, che scaturiscono dalla genuina preoccupazione che la produzione di risorse digitali sia pianificata ed eseguita nel rispetto di standard che assicurino utilizzabilità reale e stabilità, come ben spiegato anche nell’ultimo numero del newsletter dell’Arts and Humanities Data Service.
Esempi di risorse di elevata qualità:
Esempi di risorse di qualità inferiore:
Pag. 65 di 65
Napoli-Firenze 25/05/01
Saggistica e proposte di procedure di valutazione
AHDS Guides to Good Practice
(Testi riprodotti per scopi didattici con l’autorizzazione di Alastair Dunning, Editor dell’AHDS Newsletter)
Guiding the Way to Healthy Resource Creation
WHILE THE PROLIFERATION of digitisation projects is pleasing to those highlighting the advantages of electronic culture, their enthusiasm is tempered by the problems that accompany the creation of objects in digital form.
Digitisation is not a straightforward business, and there are numerous possible methods for running a digital project. This heterogeneity is worrying, for without following established standards and practice, the lasting health of digital collections is severely jeopardised. For example, failing to cater for possible changes in hard and software could mean that a resource becomes inaccessible in the long – or even medium – term future. Equally, developing a resource without providing quality metadata means that it will not be interoperable with other resources. While this will not make a resource redundant, it makes the access of the resource a much more difficult proposition.
The Arts and Humanities Data Service is committed to preventing such problems by providing resource creators with detailed advice on good practice and best standards in digitisation. Numerous channels exist for doing this. Guidance can be sought via informal communication over email or telephone, various training workshops or digital essays on the AHDS website. But the most comprehensive advice is made available in the AHDS Guides to Good Practice series. Each of the AHDS’ five service providers has published guides on various issues relating to digitisation in their field, as well as offering extensive glossaries and bibliographies. This edition of the newsletter draws attention to some of these specific concerns. The History Data Service looks at database design, while the Performing, and Visual Arts Data Services give an indication of their experience in metadata creation. The Oxford Text Archive refers to markup and delivery issues in creating and disseminating electronic texts, while the Archaeology Data Service emphasises the importance of working with other organisations in order to develop digital archaeological standards. The guides are available for free via the AHDS website http://ahds.ac.uk/guides.htm .
For the price of £ 10 each, most of the guides can be purchased in printed form, via the publishers Oxbow Books <http://oxbowbooks.com>
Coming to Terms with History: Good Practice in Database Design
DIGITAL RESOURCES based on historical sources reflect the original material but cannot completely replicate it. This is a situation peculiar to historical IT projects: the structure and content of historical sources usually impose restrictions upon the design of digital resources to an extent not often found in other situations.
When creating a digital resource, the historian has to balance two conflicting aims. On the one hand the resource should reflect the source as accurately as possible in terms of the organisation of information. This approach ensures that any information is not inadvertently excluded before its value is realised. On the other hand, the whole point of computerising historical sources is to increase the usability of the original source by rearranging the information into a form that a computer can manage. Historians are necessarily drawn into a compromise in this situation, and so good practices and established standards become an essential aid to the resource creation process. For an example of the compromises reached by one project, see the AHDS case study on the Gloucester Port Books project at: <http://ahds.ac.uk/casestudies/gloucester.html>
The History Data Service Guide to Good Practice Digitising History <http://hds.essex.ac.uk/g2gp/digitising_history/> is one source where resource creators can find advice on how best to approach good resource design. The Guide emphasises that good practice begins with the design of the digital resource: the initial model “ultimately influences whether the [resource] can be used effectively by both the project itself and further researchers”. The Guide provides assistance on all the key areas of digital resource creation. These include the processes involved in selecting appropriate standards, and the issues involved in choosing software suitable for the project. There are recommendations on managing data entry, as well as advice on issues connected with preserving the resource.
Two particular aspects of good practice that are also discussed in the guide but are very often neglected by data creators are those of documenting the digital resource, and project management. Good documentation I s vital if a digital resource is to remain technically viable and intellectually valuable in the Iong (or even short) term. If historians have chosen not to record certain parts of the original source because they cannot be easily captured in digital format, this must be acknowledged. Equally, the resource creator must also notify users where the original data has been simplified to aid computer readability. Failing to provide documentation means that later users will be unable to determine the extent to which the electronic resource is related to the source from which it has sprung. Besides the guide, the HDS provides introductory guidelines for documentation on its web site at: http://hds.essex.ac.uk/docguide.asp
Sensible project management is needed as resource creation projects can involve many people working in different locations on distinct but interrelated tasks and with a variety of methodologies. This makes a clear management structure and formal communication vitally important. A particular point to note is that work should be planned on the basis of real estimates of the time tasks will take, preferably gauged after preliminary pilot projects. The HDS guide suggests methods of dealing with such obstacles.
The HDS realises that digital resource projects can be complicated affairs. Historians embarking on such a project, particularly those doing so for the first time, should contact the HDS at an early stage in their planning. The HDS has a range of introductory information and can, when needed, provide in depth advice to individual projects. As well as our own expertise we can refer questions to other AHDS service providers, or to other technical advisory services.
Mark Merry and Hamish James, HDS
Why is Good Documentation Important?
The maintenance of comprehensive documentation detailing the data creation process and the steps taken involves a significant but profitable investment of time and resources. It is more effective if documentation is generated during, rather than after, a data creation project. Such an approach will result in a better quality data collection, as well as better-quality documentation, because the maintenance of proper documentation demands consistency and attention to detail. The process of documenting a data creation project can also have the benefit of helping to refine research questions and it can be a vital aid to communication in larger projects.
Good documentation is crucial to a data collection's long-term vitality: without it, the resource will not be suitable for future use and its provenance will be lost. Proper documentation contributes substantially to a data collection's scholarly value. The elements essential to good documentation are described below. At a minimum, documentation should provide information about a data collection's contents, provenance and structure, and the terms and conditions that apply to its use. It needs to be sufficiently detailed to allow the data creator to use the resource in the future, when the data creation process has started to fade from memory. It also needs to be comprehensive enough to enable others to explore the resource fully, and detailed enough to allow someone who has not been involved in the data creation process to understand the data collection and the process by which it was created.
Guidelines for Documenting a Data Collection
Contents
A description of the contents of the data collection should be provided in sufficient detail to allow any potential user to assess whether it is suitable for their needs. This factual description should include, where applicable:
Provenance
The provenance of a data collection needs to be documented in detail. This information should include how, why, when and by whom the data collection was created and used.
Who created the data collection and why?
A data collection's intellectual context should be documented thoroughly enough to enable someone who has not been involved in the project to understand the intellectual framework in which it was created. This information should include:
How was the data collection created?
The way in which a data collection was created should be described in sufficient detail to allow any potential user to understand the steps that were taken. This information should include:
Which sources were used to create the data collection?
Detailed information about the source(s) used to create the data collection should be provided so that any user can trace the data collection back to its original source(s) and understand the relationship between the data collection and the source(s). This information should include:
Structure
It is essential that the structure, form and organisation of a data collection be described fully. This information should include:
Terms and conditions
It is important that all the terms and conditions that apply to the use of a data collection are fully documented. In particular, copyright and other intellectual property rights must be clearly established, and the name(s) of the copyright holder(s) both for the data collection and for the original source material must be specified. If the collection was created during your work as an employee, the copyright holder will normally be your employer under your contract of employment. In particular, give full details if copyright is held jointly, if there are multiple copyrights, or if the collection is covered by Crown copyright. For further information about copyright see the AHDS Copyright FAQ
University at Albany
Purpose
Audience
Consider the Source
Source
Content
Accuracy
Comprehensiveness
Currency
Links
Style and Functionality
4/96
Trudi Jacobson
Coordinator of User Education Programs
mailto:tj662@cnsvax.albany.edu?subject=Evaluating Internet Resources
Laura Cohen
Network Services Librarian
mailto:lcohen@cnsvax.albany.edu?subject=Evaluating Internet Resources
Information Quality - Catalogue of Potent Truisms
Edited by Dr T. Matthew Ciolek
[Est. 15th October 1994, Last revised: 10 Nov 1997. This facility is provided by http://www.ciolek.com/.]
|| Info Quality WWW VL home page || Info Quality - Definitions || Info Quality - Catalogue of Potent Truisms || Evaluation of Info Resources || Building Quality WWW Resources || Building Quality non-WWW Resources || User Interface Design Issues || Conventions, Guidelines & Standards || E-Publishing & Info Quality || Ethics & Netiquette || Internet Studies || E-References & E-Citations ||
The purpose of this page is to collect and catalogue as many as possible of truisms, well-meant advice, self-evident truths, ‘friendly’ suggestions, gut-feelings, and other ‘motherhood-is-good’ type of banal observations which if subjected to pruning, analysis and translation may (with some luck and persistence) generate some practical design criteria. Please mail tmciolek@ciolek.com if you know of a truism not listed here or if you have any suggestions (conservative or radical) on better organisation of the notes below. Your additions and modifications will be gratefully appreciated.
Acknowledgements
Work on this page has been furthered by information, suggestions, comments and advice kindly provided by:
T.Barry, K.Bellingham, S.Benson, A.Brown, M.C.Brown, P.Crow, J.Gilding, I.Goltz, J.Jones, T.Knoll, A.Marr, M.C.Miller, K.McVicker, D.Nathan, D.Nissen, B.Penny, C.Rayner, K.Richardson, D.Shannon, T.Sherratt, R.Soulier, B.Thoen, J.Wodetzki
‘MOTHERHOOD IS GOOD’ list of commonsense statements
The ‘quality’ networked information facilities:
(thorough coverage of appropriate keywords, description is accurate)
For a list of wrong practices see
For examples of what is (or has been) thought as a good info. site see:
This WWW server is provided by the http://www.ciolek.com/, Canberra, Australia.
Maintainer: Dr T.Matthew Ciolek (tmciolek@ciolek.com)
Copyright © 1995-1997 by T.Matthew Ciolek. This Web page may be linked to any other Web pages. Contents may not be altered. Unauthorised use or electronic dissemination is prohibited by applicable laws. Please contact the appropriate section maintainer for permission to re-use any material.
URL http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/QltyPages/QltyTruisms.html
by Esther Grassian, UCLA College Library
The World Wide Web has a lot to offer, but not all sources are equally valuable or reliable. Here are some points to consider. For additional points regarding Web sites for subject disciplines, see Thinking Critically about Discipline-Based World Wide Web Resources.
Content & Evaluation
Source & Date
Structure
Other
Created by Esther Grassian, UCLA College Library, 6/95. Last updated 10/98. © 1997 Regents of the University of California.
Permission is granted for unlimited non-commercial use of this guide.
Last update 1/4/99
Robert Harris
Vanguard University of Southern California
Version Date: November 17, 1997
"The central work of life is interpretation." --Proverb
Introduction: The Diversity of Information
Information is a Commodity Available in Many Flavors
Think about the magazine section in your local grocery store. If you reach out with your eyes closed and grab the first magazine you touch, you are about as likely to get a supermarket tabloid as you are a respected journal (actually more likely, since many respected journals don’t fare well in grocery stores). Now imagine that your grocer is so accommodating that he lets anyone in town print up a magazine and put it in the magazine section. Now if you reach out blindly, you might get the Elvis Lives with Aliens Gazette just as easily as Atlantic Monthly or Time.
Welcome to the Internet. As I hope my analogy makes clear, there is an extremely wide variety of material on the Internet, ranging in its accuracy, reliability, and value. Unlike most traditional information media (books, magazines, organizational documents), no one has to approve the content before it is made public. It’s your job as a searcher, then, to evaluate what you locate, in order to determine whether it suits your needs.
Information Exists on a Continuum of Reliability and Quality
Information is everywhere on the Internet, existing in large quantities and continuously being created and revised. This information exists in a large variety of kinds (facts, opinions, stories, interpretations, statistics)and is created for many purposes (to inform, to persuade, to sell, to present a viewpoint, and to create or change an attitude or belief). For each of these various kinds and purposes, information exists on many levels of quality or reliability. It ranges from very good to very bad and includes every shade in between.
Getting Started: Screening Information
Pre-evaluation
The first stage of evaluating your sources takes place before you do any searching. Take a minute to ask yourself what exactly you are looking for. Do you want facts, opinions (authoritative or just anyone’s), reasoned arguments, statistics, narratives, eyewitness reports, descriptions? Is the purpose of your research to get new ideas, to find either factual or reasoned support for a position, to survey opinion, or something else? Once you decide on this, you will be able to screen sources much more quickly by testing them against your research goal. If, for example, you are writing a research paper, and if you are looking for both facts and well-argued opinions to support or challenge a position, you will know which sources can be quickly passed by and which deserve a second look, simply by asking whether each source appears to offer facts and well-argued opinions, or just unsupported claims.
Select Sources Likely to be Reliable
Becoming proficient at this will require experience, of course, but even a beginning researcher can take a few minutes to ask, "What source or what kind of source would be the most credible for providing information in this particular case?" Which sources are likely to be fair, objective, lacking hidden motives, showing quality control? It is important to keep these considerations in mind, so that you will not simply take the opinion of the first source or two you can locate. By thinking about these issues while searching, you will be able to identify suspicious or questionable sources more readily. With so many sources to choose from in a typical search, there is no reason to settle for unreliable material.
Source Selection Tip:
Try to select sources that offer as much of the following information as possible:
Author’s Name
Author’s Title or Position
Author’s Organizational Affiliation
Date of Page Creation or Version
Author’s Contact Information
Some of the Indicators of Information Quality (listed below)
Evaluating Information: The Tests of Information Quality
Reliable Information is Power
You may have heard that "knowledge is power," or that information, the raw material of knowledge, is power. But the truth is that only some information is power: reliable information. Information serves as the basis for beliefs, decisions, choices, and understanding our world. If we make a decision based on wrong or unreliable information, we do not have power--we have defeat. If we eat something harmful that we believe to be safe, we can become ill; if we avoid something good that we believe to be harmful, we have needlessly restricted the enjoyment of our lives. The same thing applies to every decision to travel, purchase, or act, and every attempt to understand.
Source Evaluation is an Art
Source evaluation--the determination of information quality--is something of an art. That is, there is no single perfect indicator of reliability, truthfulness, or value. Instead, you must make an inference from a collection of clues or indicators, based on the use you plan to make of your source. If, for example, what you need is a reasoned argument, then a source with a clear, well-argued position can stand on its own, without the need for a prestigious author to support it. On the other hand, if you need a judgment to support (or rebut) some position, then that judgment will be strengthened if it comes from a respected source. If you want reliable facts, then using facts from a source that meets certain criteria of quality will help assure the probability that those facts are indeed reliable.
The CARS Checklist
The CARS Checklist (Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness, Support) is designed for ease of learning and use. Few sources will meet every criterion in the list, and even those that do may not possess the highest level of quality possible. But if you learn to use the criteria in this list, you will be much more likely to separate the high quality information from the poor quality information.
The CARS Checklist for Information Quality
Credibility
Because people have always made important decisions based on information, evidence of authenticity and reliability--or credibility, believability--has always been important. If you read an article saying that the area where you live will experience a major earthquake in the next six months, it is important that you should know whether or not to believe the information. Some questions you might ask would include, What about this source makes it believable (or not)? How does this source know this information? Why should I believe this source over another? As you can see, the key to credibility is the question of trust.
There are several tests you can apply to a source to help you judge how credible and useful it will be:
Author’s Credentials
The author or source of the information should show some evidence of being knowledgeable, reliable, and truthful. Here are some clues:
Evidence of Quality Control
Most scholarly journal articles pass through a peer review process, whereby several readers must examine and approve content before it is published. Statements issued in the name of an organization have almost always been seen and approved by several people. (But note the difference between, "Allan Thornton, employee of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, says that a new ice age is near," and "The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency said today that a new ice age is near." The employee is speaking for himself, whereas a statement in the name of NOAA represents the official position of NOAA.)
Evidence of quality control of Internet material includes these items:
Metainformation
Metainformation is information about information. Information workers (sometimes called knowledge workers) all over the world are constantly poring over, processing, and evaluating information--and making notes. As the challenges produced by the increasing quantity of information continue, access to high quality metainformation will become increasingly important. Metainformation can take many forms, but there are two basic types, summary and evaluative.
Summary metainformation includes all the shortened forms of information, such as abstracts, content summaries, or even tables of contents. This type of metainformation gives us a quick glance at what a work is about and allows us to consider many different sources without having to go through them completely. Evaluative metainformation includes all the types that provide some judgment or analysis of content. This type includes recommendations, ratings, reviews, and commentaries. And, of course, these two types can be combined, resulting in the best form of metainformation, providing us with a quick overview and some evaluation of the value. An examples would be a World Wide Web yellow pages or directory which describes each selected site and provides evaluations of its content.
Indicators of Lack of Credibility
You can sometimes tell by the tone, style, or competence of the writing whether or not the information is suspect. Here are a few clues:
Accuracy
The goal of the accuracy test is to assure that the information is actually correct: up to date, factual, detailed, exact, and comprehensive. For example, even though a very credible writer said something that was correct twenty years ago, it may not be correct today. Similarly, a reputable source might be giving up-to-date information, but the information may be only partial, and not give the full story. Here are some concepts related to accuracy:
Timeliness
Some work is timeless, like the classic novels and stories, or like the thought provoking philosophical work of Aristotle and Plato. Other work has a limited useful life because of advances in the discipline (psychological theory, for example), and some work is outdated very quickly (like technology news). You must therefore be careful to note when the information you find was created, and then decide whether it is still of value (and how much value). You may need information within the past ten years, five years, or even two weeks. But old is not necessarily bad: nineteenth-century American history books or literary anthologies can be highly educational because they can function as comparisons with what is being written or anthologized now. In many cases, though, you want accurate, up-to-date information.
An important idea connected with timeliness is the dynamic, fluid nature of information and the fact that constant change means constant changes in timeliness. The facts we learn today may be timely now, but tomorrow will not be. Especially in technology, science, medicine, business, and other fields always in flux, we must remember to check and re-check our data from time to time, and realize that we will always need to update our facts.
Comprehensiveness
Any source that presents conclusions or that claims (explicitly or implicitly) to give a full and rounded story, should reflect the intentions of completeness and accuracy. In other words, the information should be comprehensive. Some writers argue that researchers should be sure that they have "complete" information before making a decision or that information must be complete. But with the advent of the information age, such a goal is impossible, if by "complete" we mean all possible information. No one can read 20,000 articles on the same subject before coming to a conclusion or making a decision. And no single piece of information will offer the truly complete story--that’s why we rely on more than one source. On the other hand, an information source that deliberately leaves out important facts, qualifications, consequences, or alternatives, may be misleading or even intentionally deceptive.
Audience and Purpose
For whom is this source intended and for what purpose? If, for example, you find an article, "How Plants Grow," and children are the intended audience, then the material may be too simplified for your college botany paper. More important to the evaluation of information is the purpose for which the information was created. For example, an article titled, "Should You Buy or Lease a Car?" might have been written with the purpose of being an objective analysis, but it may instead have been written with the intention of persuading you that leasing a car is better than buying. In such a case, the information will most likely be highly biased or distorted. Such information is not useless, but the bias must be taken into consideration when interpreting and using the information. (In some cases, you may need to find the truth by using only biased sources, some biased in one direction and some biased in the other.) Be sure, then, that the intended audience and purpose of the article are appropriate to your requirements or at least clearly in evidence so that you may take them into account. Information pretending to objectivity but possessing a hidden agenda of persuasion or a hidden bias is among the most common kind of information in our culture.
Indicators of a Lack of Accuracy
In addition to an obvious tone or style that reveals a carelessness with detail or accuracy, there are several indicators that may mean the source is inaccurate, either in whole or in part:
Reasonableness
The test of reasonableness involves examining the information for fairness, objectivity, moderateness, and consistency.
Fairness
Fairness includes offering a balanced, reasoned argument, not selected or slanted. Even ideas or claims made by the source’s opponents should be presented in an accurate manner. Pretending that the opponent has wild, irrational ideas or arguments no one could accept is to commit the straw man fallacy. A good information source will also possess a calm, reasoned tone, arguing or presenting material thoughtfully and without attempting to get you emotionally worked up. Pay attention to the tone and be cautious of highly emotional writing. Angry, hateful, critical, spiteful tones often betray an irrational and unfair attack underway rather than a reasoned argument. And writing that attempts to inflame your feelings to prevent you from thinking clearly is also unfair and manipulative.
Objectivity
There is no such thing as pure objectivity, but a good writer should be able to control his or her biases. Be aware that some organizations are naturally not neutral. For example, a professional anti-business group will find, say, that some company or industry is overcharging for widgets. The industry trade association, on the other hand, can be expected to find that no such overcharging is taking place. Be on the lookout for slanted, biased, politically distorted work.
One of the biggest hindrances to objectivity is conflict of interest. Sometimes an information source will benefit in some way (usually financially, but sometimes politically or even emotionally or psychologically) if that source can get you to accept certain information rather than the pure and objective truth. For example, many sites that sell "natural" products (cosmetics, vitamins, clothes) often criticize their competitors for selling bad, unhealthy or dangerous products. The criticism may be just, but because the messenger will gain financially if you believe the message, you should be very careful--and check somewhere else before spending money or believing the tale.
Moderateness
Moderateness is a test of the information against how the world really is. Use your knowledge and experience to ask if the information is really likely, possible, or probable. Most truths are ordinary. If a claim being made is surprising or hard to believe, use caution and demand more evidence than you might require for a lesser claim. Claims that seem to run against established natural laws also require more evidence. In other words, do a reality check. Is the information believable? Does it make sense? Or do the claims lack face validity? That is, do they seem to conflict with what you already know in your experience, or do they seem too exaggerated to be true? "Half of all Americans have had their cars stolen." Does that pass the face validity test? Have half of your friends had their cars stolen? Is the subject on the news regularly (as we might assume it would be if such a level of theft were the case)?
It is important, of course, to remember that some truths are spectacular and immoderate. A few years back, a performer with the stage name of Mr. Mange Tout (French for "eats everything") actually ate, over a period of a few years, several bicycles, TV sets, and a small airplane by first having them ground into a fine powder and sprinkling a few teaspoonfuls on his breakfast cereal each morning. So do not automatically reject a claim or source simply because it is astonishing. Just be extra careful about checking it out.
Consistency
The consistency test simply requires that the argument or information does not contradict itself. Sometimes when people spin falsehoods or distort the truth, inconsistencies or even contradictions show up. These are evidence of unreasonableness.
World View
A writer’s view of the world (political, economic, religious--including anti-religious--and philosophical) often influences his or her writing profoundly, from the subjects chosen to the slant, the issues raised, issues ignored, fairness to opponents, kinds of examples, and so forth. World view can be an evaluative test because some world views in some people cause quite a distortion in their view of reality or their world view permits them to fabricate evidence or falsify the positions of others. For some writers, political agendas take precedence over truth. If you are looking for truth, such sources are not the best.
Indicators of a Lack of Reasonableness
Writers who put themselves in the way of the argument, either emotionally or because of self interest, often reveal their lack of reasonableness. If, for example, you find a writer reviewing a book he opposes by asserting that "the entire book is completely worthless claptrap," you might suspect there is more than a reasoned disagreement at work. Here are some clues to a lack of reasonableness:
Support
The area of support is concerned with the source and corroboration of the information. Much information, especially statistics and claims of fact, comes from other sources. Citing sources strengthens the credibility of the information. (Remember this when you write a research paper.)
Source Documentation or Bibliography
Where did this information come from? What sources did the information creator use? Are the sources listed? Is there a bibliography or other documentation? Does the author provide contact information in case you wish to discuss an issue or request further clarification? What kind of support for the information is given? How does the writer know this? It is especially important for statistics to be documented. Otherwise, someone may be just making up numbers. Note that some information from corporate sites consists of descriptions of products, techniques, technologies, or processes with which the corporation is involved. If you are careful to distinguish between facts ("We mix X and Y together to get Z") and advertising ("This protocol is the best in the industry"), then such descriptions should be reliable.
Corroboration
See if other sources support this source. Corroboration or confirmability is an important test of truth. And even in areas of judgment or opinion, if an argument is sound, there will probably be a number of people who adhere to it or who are in some general agreement with parts of it. Whether you’re looking for a fact (like the lyrics to a song or the date of an event), an opinion (like whether paper or plastic is the more environmentally friendly choice), or some advice (like how to grow bromeliads), it is a good idea to triangulate your findings: that is, find at least three sources that agree. If the sources do not agree, do further research to find out the range of opinion or disagreement before you draw your conclusions.
What you are doing with corroboration, then, is using information to test information. Use one source, fact, point of view, or interpretation to test another. Find other information to support and reconfirm (or to challenge or rebut) information you have found.
Corroboration is especially important when you find dramatic or surprising information (information failing the moderateness test, above). For example, the claim that a commonly used food additive is harmful should be viewed with skepticism until it can be confirmed (or rebutted) by further research. The claim may be true, but it seems unlikely that both government and consumer organizations would let the additive go unchallenged if indeed it were harmful.
External Consistency
While the test of corroboration involves finding out whether other sources contain the same new information as the source being evaluated, the test of external consistency compares what is familiar in the new source with what is familiar in other sources. That is, information is usually a mixture of old and new, some things you already know and some things you do not. The test of external consistency asks, Where this source discusses facts or ideas I already know something about, does the source agree or harmonize or does it conflict, exaggerate, or distort? The reasoning is that if a source is faulty where it discusses something you already know, it is likely to be faulty in areas where you do not yet know, and you should therefore be cautious and skeptical about trusting it.
Indicators of a Lack of Support
As you can readily guess, the lack of supporting evidence provides the best indication that there is indeed no available support. Be careful, then, when a source shows problems like these:
Summary of The CARS Checklist for Research Source Evaluation
Credibility trustworthy source, author’s credentials, evidence of quality control, known or respected authority, organizational support. Goal: an authoritative source, a source that supplies some good evidence that allows you to trust it.
Accuracy up to date, factual, detailed, exact, comprehensive, audience and purpose reflect intentions of completeness and accuracy. Goal: a source that is correct today (not yesterday), a source that gives the whole truth.
Reasonableness fair, balanced, objective, reasoned, no conflict of interest, absence of fallacies or slanted tone. Goal: a source that engages the subject thoughtfully and reasonably, concerned with the truth.
Support listed sources, contact information, available corroboration, claims supported, documentation supplied. Goal: a source that provides convincing evidence for the claims made, a source you can triangulate (find at least two other sources that support it).
Internet Search Tips and Strategies
Home Page of Robert Harris | Vanguard U Home Page
Copyright 1997 by Robert Harris | How to cite this page
About the author:
Robert Harris is Professor of English at Vanguard University of Southern California in Costa Mesa, California. Rharris@vanguard.edu
La griglia di Whittaker
Una proposta per valutare fonti web
Bibliografia
La griglia di Whittaker
Numerosi studi si sono occupati di valutazione delle fonti cartacee, anche se su questa materia la letteratura professionale italiana [1] è molto meno ricca di quella anglosassone [2].
Uno tra i metodi più completi è ancora quello messo a punto per i libri da Whittaker, che ci fornisce la seguente griglia di valutazione, liberamente tradotta:
Una proposta per valutare fonti web
Lo sviluppo delle raccolte di una biblioteca riguarda oggi anche le fonti elettroniche, che il bibliotecario deve saper valutare ed integrare con le tradizionali fonti cartacee. Sorge così l’esigenza di adattare gli strumenti di valutazione tradizionali ai cd-rom, alle risorse in linea e a quelle in Internet. I problemi possono essere di volta in volta simili, ma anche un po’ diversi.
In particolar modo Internet pone molti problemi, dal momento che offre una documentazione vastissima e non sempre affidabile, anche per i bassi costi di pubblicazione e la grande quantità di enti e persone che colgono questa opportunità.
Anche se sarà necessario individuare criteri diversi e più specifici per diverse tipologie di fonti, poiché ben diversi fra loro sono un repertorio di indirizzi, un documento, un periodico elettronico o un’opera di editoria elettronica, una enciclopedia, una bibliografia o un catalogo, una risorsa per bambini o una a scopo di intrattenimento, o di affari, o di sperimentazione informatica, quella che proponiamo è una griglia generale, che sottoponiamo all’attenzione di quanti vorranno segnalare proposte di modifiche o aggiornamenti, in base ad osservazioni o esperienze, fortunate o sventurate, di navigazione.
In evidenza le parti in cui sono state introdotte variazioni rispetto alla griglia precedente e i punti che richiedono ulteriori riflessioni:
manifattura:
Alcune riflessioni:
Carlo Carotti. La biblioteca come servizio di base: obiettivi, tecniche, criteri di gestione. Milano: Bibliografica, 1991.
Carlo Carotti. Gli acquisti in biblioteca: formazione e accrescimento del patrimonio documentario. Milano: Bibliografica, 1989.
Madel Crasta. La costruzione delle raccolte, in: Lineamenti di biblioteconomia, a cura di Paola Geretto, Roma: Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1991.
Gabriele Gatti. Macchine celibi? Accumulo o distribuzione dell’informazione fra tecnologie e professionalità, "Biblioteche oggi", 15 (1997), n.6, p.6-21 (oppure in: "Forum", E.S. Burioni, <http://www.burioni.it/forum/bo97-gatti.htm>)
Rino Pensato. Corso di bibliografia: guida alla compilazione e all’uso dei repertori bibliografici. Milano: Bibliografica, 1989 (si veda all’interno del Capitolo 3).
Giovanni Solimine. Introduzione allo studio della biblioteconomia: riflessioni e documenti. Manziana: Vecchiarelli, 1995 (si veda il Capitolo Sesto).
2. Si ricordano solo alcuni tra i contributi anglosassoni più importanti:
Janine Betty Schmidt. Apparatus: a mnemonic for the evaluation of reference resource, "The reference librarian", n.11 (1984), p.301-311.
William A Katz. Introduction to reference work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.
The publishing and review of reference sources, "The reference librarian", n.15 (1986).
Kenneth Whittaker. Systematic evaluation: methods and sources for assessing books. London: Clive Bingley, 1982.
3a. Contributi sulla valutazione di fonti documentarie web:
Jan Alexander - Marsha Ann Tate. Evaluating Web resources. Widener University, Wolfgram Memorial Library, 1996, last revised 15 December 1999. <http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webeval.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Jan Alexander - Marsha Ann Tate. Checklist for an informational web page. Widener University, Wolfgram Memorial Library, 1996, last revised 15 December 1999. <http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/inform.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Susan E. Beck. The good, the bad, & the ugly, or, Why it’s a good idea to evaluate Web sources. 1997, last updated on 10/07/99. <http://lib.nmsu.edu/instruction/eval.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Carolin Caywood. Library selection criteria for WWW resources. 1995, last revised 12/99. <http://www6.pilot.infi.net/~carolyn/criteria.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
T. Matthew Ciolek. Information quality: catalogue of potent truismes. Last revised 10 Nov 1997. <http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/QltyPages/QltyTruisms.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
T. Matthew Ciolek. Information quality: some definitions. 1996, last revised 5 May 1999. <http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/QltyPages/QltyDefinitions.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
T. Matthew Ciolek - Irena M. Goltz. Information quality WWW virtual library: the Internet guide to construction of quality online resources. 1996, last updated 10 Dec 1999. <http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVL-InfoQuality.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Michael Engle. Evaluating Web sites: criteria and tools. Cornell University Library, Olin Kroch Uris Libraries, 1996, revised June 3, 1999. <http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/webeval.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Evaluating science www resources. Department of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, North Carolina State University. <http://www.ncsu.edu/imse/3/evalweb.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Esther Grassian. Thinking critically about World Wide Web resources. UCLA College Library, June 1995, last update 1/4/99. <http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/instruct/web/critical.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Esther Grassian. Thinking critically about discipline-based World Wide Web resources. UCLA College Library,1997, last update 11/10/98. <http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/instruct/web/discp.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Robert Harris. Evaluating Internet research sources. Vanguard University of Southern California, 1997. <http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/evalu8it.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
John Henderson. ICYou see: T is for thinking. Ithaca College Library, last modified January 4, 2000. <http://www.ithaca.edu/library/Training/hott.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Trudi Jacobson - Laura Cohen. Evaluating Internet Resources. University at Albany Libraries, 1996. <http://www.albany.edu/library/internet/evaluate.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe. Evaluation of information. 1995, updated May 29, 1997. <http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/~janicke/Eval.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Elizabeth E. Kirk. Evaluating information found on the Internet. 1996, last modification 1.4.2000. <http://milton.mse.jhu.edu:8001/research/education/net.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Elisabeth E. Kirk. Practical Steps in Evaluating Internet Resources. Johns Hopkins University, Milton S. Eisenhower Library, 1996, last update 11.29.99. <http://milton.mse.jhu.edu:8001/research/education/practical.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Carolyn Kotlas. Evaluating web sites for educational uses: bibliography and checklist. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1997, last revised July 15, 1999. <http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-49.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
OMNI Guidelines for Resource Evaluation. Organising Medical Networked Information. Page last modified 27/Feb/1999. <http://omni.ac.uk/agec/evalguid.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Joan Ormondroyd - Michael Engle - Tony Cosgrave. How to critically analyze information sources. Cornell University Library, Olin Kroch Uris Libraries, revised June 28, 1999. <http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill26.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
James Rettig. Beyond "cool": analog models for reviewing digital resources. "Online", 20 (1996), n. 5. <http://www.onlineinc.com/onlinemag/SeptOL/rettig9.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Alastair Smith. Criteria for evaluation of Internet information resources. Last modified 2 March 1997. <http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/index.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Alastair Smith. Testing the surf: criteria for evaluating Internet information resources. "The public-access computer systems review", 8 (1997), n. 3. <http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v8/n3/smit8n3.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Hope N. Tillman. Evaluating quality on the net. 1995, date last revised 5 January 2000. <http://www.tiac.net/users/hope/findqual.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Gene L. Wilkinson - Lisa T. Bennett - Kevin M. Oliver. Evaluating the quality of Internet information sources. UGA Instructional Technology, most recent update May 20, 1997. <http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/faculty/gwilkinson/webeval.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Gene L. Wilkinson - Lisa T. Bennett - Kevin M. Oliver. Evaluating the quality of Internet information sources: consolidated listing of evaluation criteria and quality indicators. UGA Instructional Technology, most recent update May 19, 1997. <http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/Faculty/gwilkinson/criteria.html >. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
3b. Bibliografie sulla valutazione di fonti documentarie web:
Jan Alexander - Marsha Ann Tate. Evaluating web resources: bibliography. Widener University, Wolfgram Memorial Library, 1996, last revised 15 December 1999. <http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/webstrbib.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Jan Alexander - Marsha Ann Tate. Links to Additional Sites with Web Evaluation Materials. Widener University, Wolfgram Memorial Library, 1997, last revised 15 December 1999. <http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial-Library/cklstlnk.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Nicole Auer. Bibliography on evaluating Internet resources. Last updated December 7, 1999. <http://www.lib.vt.edu/research/libinst/evalbiblio.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
John Henderson. ICYou see: T is for thinking. Ithaca College Library, last modified January 4, 2000. <http://www.ithaca.edu/library/Training/hott.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Carolyn Kotlas. Evaluating web sites for educational uses: bibliography and checklist. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1997, last revised July 15, 1999. <http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-49.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Gabriele Mazzitelli - Riccardo Ridi. Internet in biblioteca, corso avanzato: bibliografia generale. AIB, 1998, ultimo aggiornamento 2000-01-05. <http://www.aib.it/aib/corsi/98c-06-b.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Alastair Smith. Evaluation of information sources. Last modified 5 December 1997. <http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Gene L. Wilkinson - Lisa T. Bennett - Kevin M. Oliver. Evaluating the quality of Internet information sources: bibliography. UGA Instructional Technology, most recent update May 19, 1997. <http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/Faculty/gwilkinson/bibliography.html>. Ultima consultazione 2000-01-09.
Questo è un documento soggetto ad aggiornamenti, integrazioni, modifiche e cambiamenti, e sottoposto alla discussione di tutti coloro che vorranno proporre le loro osservazioni.
La collaborazione è attesa e gradita, scrivendo all’indirizzo <boretti@aib.it>
In questo spazio sarà data notizia dei contributi ricevuti e di chi ha collaborato.
Copyright AIB 2000-02-09, ultimo controllo dei link 2000-05-25, ultimo aggiornamento 2000-05-26, testo di Elena Boretti, a cura di Claudio Gnoli.
<http://www.aib.it/aib/contr/boretti1.htm>