Website Trustworthiness: What Everyone Needs to Know
Have you (or your) clients been assuming that the majority of the information that you find on the internet is of good quality? Regretfully, we cannot… Aside from the fact that what we see is influenced by the filter bubble, there are many urban legends, sites with misinformation, inaccuracies, biases, hoaxes and more. This post will provide you with some guidelines to assessing website trustworthiness.
As social workers, helping professionals, coaches and/or educators, we must not only exercise caution ourselves with every site that we visit, but also provide some guidance to our clients and students on what to look for as high or low credibility signs to minimize the chances that they get duped by false claims or wrong information.
We are all highly likely to be searching online for information that matters. Not only do 87% of U.S. adults use the internet, but 7 out of 10 internet users report using the internet as a source of health information and over a third (35%) have used the internet as a diagnostic tool to figure out their medical condition.
As Howard Rheingold, a renown expert, teacher and author in the digital arena, states in his book Net Smart [affiliate link], we are all advised to “Make skepticism your default. Don’t refuse to believe; refuse to start out believing.” He recommends the CRAP Detection method to assess website trustworthiness.
The CRAP Detection Barometer
- Currency
- Reliability
- Authority
- Purpose/Point of View
The graphic below summarizes the key elements you want to be evaluating for currency, reliability, authority and purpose or point of view. That said, even with these guidelines, it is recommended that you triangulate plus use some judgment.
Triangulating refers to the idea of using 3 independent ways to verify each source/element you are looking at. For example, if someone passes the authority test by seeming to have the knowledge/expertise plus credentials, check to see:
- Whether the author really has the credentials from the stated institution
- Whether the stated institution exists and is reputable
- What other individuals think of this author, and who are these other individuals? (how reputable are they, what are they known for)
Using your judgment is still necessary because some items may be misleading in one direction or another. For instance, a site may lack a professional look to it, but actually be of high quality. Similarly, it is possible that a professional looking site with an org or edu suffix is not a legitimate nonprofit or educational firm.
Applying CRAP test to Website Trustworthiness for This Article
- In terms of currency, it is recent because it was just written (positive) and it is based upon a range of recent resources with varying dates. Furthermore, if you would look up other resources to confirm the validity of the CRAP method, you would find that the elements are recognized by various educational institutions across the United States (positive). Also, in this case, this type of information is more of the evergreen type so that even if though one of the sources is from 2009, the guidance stands true now (positive).
- With respect to reliability, several reputable references/resources have been provided (and within each one of these, there are more). Furthermore, you may check the quality of the backlinks to those sources by going to backlinkwatch. (positive).
- In terms of authority, you know my name (positive); you know that I have an MBA in Marketing from Fordham University’s Graduate School of Business and an MSW in Social Work from NYU’s Silver School of Social Work (positive), you may verify this information as well as the existence of these reputable schools (positive).
You know that I have been blogging since 2009 (positive), (although the blog has changed its name a couple of times) blog does not have a page ranking (possible negative); you continue to investigate and see that blog (under prior name of Social Work Career Development at www.dorleem.com on google blogger) had a page ranking of 4 (positive).
You see that I consult for both the Center for Financial Social Work and the University of Buffalo of Social Work (positive); you look on linkedin and you see the recommendations from the Center for Financial Social Work and the University of Buffalo of Social Work (positive). You also see that I will be teaching an undergraduate course on social media in January at the University of Buffalo (positive).
You see what others think about blog (positive). You note who these others are (reputable social work, mental health, educational and career professionals) (positive). You see that Nancy Smyth, the Dean of the University of Buffalo School of Social Work, gave blog Liebster Award (positive).
- With respect to purpose/point of view, you look through my blog and this article and my intention is to inform (positive). I do not have any sponsors (positive). While I’m not trying to sell anything, I include an affiliate link (possible negative).
In sum, I believe that this article/blog would pass the CRAP detection test!
Lastly, below are a few additional resources that you may find helpful in the task of verifying either the quality of information in an article or the site itself:
- Identity/Academic Recognition
- Whois – to find out who owns any domain on the internet
- Faculty Scholarly Index – a score for academics based on their publications, citations by other scholars, grants, honors, and awards (only accessible to those who have proprietary access)
- Information
- Health on the Net – a non-profit, non-governmental organization, accredited by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, that analyzes the quality of medical information website by website.
- VerificationJunkie – collection of resources and tools to verify facts and news
- Urban Legends – posts the latest false claims/rumors
- Snopes – the place to confirm urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.
- Plagiarism/Previous Layout
- Wayback Machine – to view old/original website designs
- Copyscape – can help find out instantly whether one author has plagiarized a post from another
References:
Carey, J. (26, March 2014). How to infuse digital literacy throughout the curriculum. Retrieved from http://plpnetwork.com/2014/03/26/infuse-digital-literacy-curriculum/
Fox, S. & Duggan, M. (2013). Health online 2013. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
Mesko, B. (20, May 2009). Health Information Online: How to check the quality?
Rheingold, H., Good, R. et al. (n.d.). A Guide to crap detection sources. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/163G79vq-mFWjIqMb9AzYGbr5Y8YMGcpbSzJRutO8tpw/edit#
Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rheingold, H. (30, June, 2009). Crap detection 101. SFGate City Brights. Retrieved from http://blog.sfgate.com/rheingold/2009/06/30/crap-detection-101/
What other clues or items do you look for when you check out a new site/author?
Like this post? Please share it!
Great post, Dorlee! You’ve put it out in time to be included in the book that Laurel, Melanie and I are writing 🙂
Oh, wow, thanks so much, Nancy!
Thank you, Dorlee, for writing this post!
I can only imagine that your motivation in writing this is that you’ve been frustrated (as have I) with seeing so many therapists being duped by unscrupulous websites owners.
Every day it seems I see far-fetched claims of universities and private coaches, too, offering “easy” ways to get degrees and fill practices.
We all have fantasies of Easy Street and it can be fairly easy to trick unsuspecting therapists into taking a hike down the yellow brick road.
Your post and infographic will give any of us (and our clients, too) tools to make better-informed choices about who to trust and what to look for.
Thank you thank you!
Thanks so much, Tamara, for your very kind and enthusiastic feedback!
I’m also most appreciative of you illustrating some of the dangers that we/our clients may easily fall upon if we do not exercise caution.
It is indeed my hope that this post may serve as a guidepost/reminder that we may take everything we see on the internet at face value.