For this particular blog prompt, I chose to focus on
Wikipedia because I couldn’t think of another website more geared towards the
general public. Because my group and I have focused on Tse-whit-zen, the
ancient Native American burial ground discovered in Port Angeles in 2003, I
decided to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. Unfortunately, I found Wikipedia to have a
shocking lack of information on Tse-whit-zen, especially considering the amount
of available information I know is out there. So, I decided to see how much
information was to be found on the Hood Canal Bridge instead. The Hood Canal
Bridge was the reason for the accidental discovery of Tse-whit-zen due to a
large rehabilitation project which was to take place in Port Angeles. The Hood Canal Bridge has much more written
about it; therefore, I have decided evaluate it based on the rubric my group
created.
Scope:
5/5 – This isn’t very relevant to this
particular website as there is no introduction defining the scope of the topic or explaining why certain information was included or omitted.
Depth of
Analysis: 4/5 – The information
included is relevant, with no irrelevant information included. However, the background information provided does not have much depth and
could use more connections to other material.
Presentation:
5/5 – The information is presented in a very clear and accessible way with obvious headings and subsections and there are no grammatical or spelling errors.
Three types of media are used as well: writing, images, and I’m including links to external
websites .
Evidence:
2/5 – Despite the inclusion of reference material at the bottom of the page, many
statements of fact are not referenced with a foot note or other form of in-text
citation. The sources used are also imbalanced. Based on the topic, I feel that a variety of sources
could be used rather than simply relying on an online encyclopedia.
Summary:
N/A – I chose not to include this in the evaluation due to the nature of the
website as an encyclopedia-like informational source.
References:
1/5 – While the citation style was consistent and without grammatical errors, the
lack of references throughout the text was
unacceptable. Furthermore, none of the sources used were scholarly or peer
reviewed.
When
discussing the Hood Canal Bridge, Wikipedia scored a 17/25 for a total of 68%. To
improve the website, I would include far more references throughout the text,
and increase the scope and depth of material by using more varied and credible
sources. I’m glad I didn’t choose to evaluate the page on Tse-whit-zen!
No comments:
Post a Comment