Dear Friends, Just to clarify - the principles mentioned here to evaluate web content are modified version (by me ) and not the original set by HONcode. This could cause a bit of confusion if wrongly or partially attributed. They may not agree to my interpretation of their principles. Check out the following discussion for proper context. http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/pipermail/lis-forum/2008-January/006742.html Let me quote the relevant portion: ".....They call these parameters as code of conduct. [ http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html ] I am taking their "code of conduct" (visit the link above) as a base to give you a set of general parameters: (I hope the same/similar set of parameters can be used for evaluating other sites too)...." I agree that there could a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) at LIS-FORUM. Thanks --Sukhdev Singh, NIC.
There are organization in various subject areas which issues some guidelines for site. Eg. organization for health related sites. It is Health on the Net Foundation - http://www.hon.ch/ . They evaluate a health related site and give a certificate of authenticity. They evaluate a site on a set of eight parameters.
They call these parameters as code of conduct. [ http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html ]
1. Authoritative We should consider who are the authors of site. Govt.; Academic and Research Institutions are normally given higer priority (Even Google Scholar follows that policy).
2. Complementarity Clear indication that Information supports, but does not replace professional help.
3. Privacy Good sites lists out their privacy policies in relation to information submitted (like emails etc) by users. Good sites should not pass on this information to third parties or use it for spaming its users.
4. Attribution Look for attribution statements. Good sites cite the source(s) of published information and publication and updation dates for its pages. The dates should not be system generationed - some sites give today's date automatically generated ( Take it a negative practice if this is to indicate date of information ).
5. Justifiability If any claim of benefits and performance is made then look for justification and methodology for arriving at such a claim.
6. Transparency
There should be clear indication of organisation or people behind the site and what is the purpose of their site. Is it for bussiness, advocacy, intellectual intestest or lobbinging. Look for accurate email and other contacts.
7. Financial disclosure Identify funding sources.
8. Advertising policy
Advertising as such may not be bad, some good site give quality information and sustain from advertising revenue - like newspapers and magazines. However what should be seen is that advertisements are clearly indicated and seperated from the main content. The information should be unbaised on the site and should not be influenced by sponsors or the adversitors.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.