CRAAP assignment website #1

CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose. It's a list of questions to help you evaluate the reliability of information. For this assignment I evaluated a website published by the Carnegie Museum of Natural History about American Indians and the Natural World. Here are my answers to the questions:

Resource Quality Evaluation Worksheet

Title of the resource you are evaluating: American Indians and the Natural World

Directions: Please evaluate your information source according to each of the criteria below by selecting the number that best represents your response.

Currency: The timeliness of the information
Is the information (while perhaps historic) current or out-of-date? Has it been revised or updated?
For example, if an historical text refers to a minority group using what would be considered derogatory language, rate it not current.

Not Applicable Not Current Somewhat Current Current Very Current
0 1 2 3 4

Somewhat current. I thought most of the information looked good but I didn’t like the title. I would’ve preferred a term different from “American Indians”. Date on website was 1998, so it’s pretty outdated.

Relevance: The importance of the information for your needs.
Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question? Is the information at an appropriate level?
For example, an elementary textbook would not be at an appropriate level and therefore not relevant.
Not Applicable Not Relevant Somewhat Relevant Relevant Very Relevant
0 1 2 3 4

I thought the information was relevant. The information was readable for upper elementary grades.

Authority: The source of the information
What are the author’s qualifications to write on the topic?
For example, an anonymous author on Wikipedia has far less authority than a named author on a website sponsored by a university.
Not Applicable Not Authoritative Somewhat Authoritative Authoritative Very
0 1 2 3 4

Somewhat authoritative. It is sponsored by Carnegie Museum of Natural History. I don’t think this is as authoritative as a university but it’s not Wikipedia and seems to be a fairly neutral source.

Accuracy: The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the informational content.
Where does the information come from? Is the information supported by evidence? Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
For example, information found on About.com is somewhat accurate because it is not supported by evidence and it is unclear whether the information is reviewed.
Not Applicable Not Accurate Somewhat Accurate Accurate Very Accurate
0 1 2 3 4

Somewhat accurate. This isn’t a reviewed or refereed article. The information was not supported by evidence. There is no indication of where the web-site authors obtained the information.

 
Purpose: The reason the information was published
Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda? Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
For example, an anti-Semitic website has an inappropriate purpose that shares biased opinion with the goal of disseminating hate.
Not Applicable Inappropriate purpose Somewhat Appropriate Purpose Appropriate Purpose Very Appropriate Purpose
0 1 2 3 4

Very appropriate purpose. This information is published only to inform. I could not find any other goal or purpose in publishing this information.