|
Criteria |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
Points |
|
Referenced |
No references made to where the information came from, or the referenced sources are of poor quality. 0 points. |
Refers to information sources, but does not provide complete citations, or provides a bibliography, but no in-text reference, or cites low or moderate-quality information sources. 2 points. |
Provides complete citations, including in-text references, to show you where the information came from. The references are to good quality sources. 3 points. |
|
|
Public or |
Little or no evidence exists that this author or organization is regarded as an expert on this topic. (Not often quoted in mainstream media or cited in scholarly publications). 0 points. |
Some evidence suggests that others regard this author or organization as an expert. Author may have given workshops or presentations at conferences, or served as an invited speaker. |
Significant evidence exists that this author or organization is regarded as an expert on this topic. (Frequently quoted in mainstream media or frequently cited in scholarly publications). 3 points. |
|
|
Credentials |
No evidence exists that this author or organization has relevant training and experience in the field or discipline. Author may be a professional writer, but without a background in the topic. 0 points. |
Some evidence exists to suggest at least some relevant training and experience. The author may or may not have some experience working in the discipline, or might be a journalist specializing in writing in the broad discipline. 1 point. |
Significant evidence that this author or organization has relevant training and substantial experience in the field, such as advanced degrees in the discipline, leadership roles in the field, or a history of publishing on the topic. 3 points. |
|
|
Criteria |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
Points |
|
Objectivity |
Strongly biased: Presents one-sided arguments without consideration of other points of view. May present more opinion than fact, or only present facts that agree with a single point of view. May present the topic in oversimplified or stark (black & white) terms. 0 points. |
Somewhat biased. Presents and supports a particular point of view, but intelligently acknowledges and refutes other viewpoints. 1 point. |
Information is given in a balanced way. Uses neutral language. May dispassionately discuss multiple/competing points of view. May acknowledge complexities within the subject matter. 2 points. |
|
|
Presentation |
Information presented in an unprofessional manner. May have grammatical or typographical errors. May include volatile language. |
Information is presented in a mature, yet informal manner, such as in an email message or chatty blog post. ½ point. |
Information presented in a professional or formal manner. Contains no grammatical or typographical errors. Neutral or detached language used throughout. 1 point. |
|
|
Total Points: |
||||
Credibility Ratings:
0-4 points: Low credibility, overall. Avoid relying on this source; Look for more credible sources.
4-8 points: Moderate credibility, overall. Use with reasonable caution; Verify data in other sources. If you detect bias, seek out information from sources representing neutral or alternate points of view.
9-12 points: High credibility, overall. Use with reasonable confidence.
Windward Community College Library