Evaluating Website Reliability 

                                                            Investigating reliability clipart 

In the most recent class activity, we take a look at two websites in order to discern reliability...

*Disabled World: Disability News and Information (disabled-world.com)

*Program Areas | U.S. Department of Labor (dol.gov)

Website 1- U.S. Department of Labor 

In order to determine reliability, we first have to address the basic source component. We'll start with the U.S. Department of Labor. It is both a secure and official entity, which earns it greater credibility right off the bat. It also has the following attributes that I found to be most prominently indicative of a reliable website.

~ It's professional, concise, informative 

~Easy navigation features 

~Search bar 

~Up to date

~Clear mission statement

~Well categorized info sections, including a FAQ for General, Individual, and Employee related topics. 

Overall, one can use the site efficiently and not have to search around with any great difficulty. It is primarily focused on employment for peoples with disabilities, so it's going to come up in a search engine efficiently for those seeking relevant content. The information is all coming from a trusted source, so it's going to be accurate and up to date. It also has appealing graphics and formatting. Overall, it is highly readable, the pictures engaging, and the background is not over or under stimulating. It's well planned out for ease of navigation. 

Website 2- disabled-world.com

Our second site is a bit less straightforward. It is not necessarily as secure or officialized, but it does state explicitly at the bottom of the site homepage that it provides only general information. Typically, I'd be wary of this site's reliability just as a general rule because I tend to look for indications that it's a credible source. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to use it without having to fact-check elsewhere that is reputable. However, I do think this site holds its own sort of reliability, even if it does not rival the .gov site we've dissected above. I think it holds these crucial elements that work.

~Up to date

~Transparent, professional, informative, educational

~Contains stats, resources, and facts that are in all the cases I witnessed cited or organized under references to larger, reliable organizations. 

~Search bar 

~About section 

~Contact us feature (This is always a crucial section for me on a website. If I can contact someone or put a face to what I'm reading, I can build further questions, reach out, or check credibility from the writer's own arsenal and educational background.)

In general, this site was lacking the same quality and assured readability and reliability that the .gov site provided. It is visibly lacking in my opinion, and the white background contrasted against the blue words is somewhat tough on my eyes. It does provide some great information though, including a page dedicated to communication with and about people who have disabilities. There is a lot of general information here, though it tends to feel "sluggish" to work through. One might have to really dig around in order to come across what you're looking for. 

General Conclusions

Evaluating these two sites got me thinking a lot about the sources I particularly gravitate towards in my own research. I started thinking more about my own research habits. A lot of times, I think it's important to point out that a majority of our information in a technological age comes from unreliable sources and we have to do some more footwork if we are to determine the actual facts. For instance, I use the Reddit platform occasionally because I enjoy a good debate or discussion on topics such as finance, politics, economy, and the environment. Within this platform, there is a LARGE gray area for people to misrepresent or botch statistics and factual evidence. I end up spending a lot of time finding outside educational sources to more deeply explore viewpoints that others might call to attention, or discern whether certain statistics are true or not. Tying this back to the above websites, I think we can all consider using a bit more caution when proceeding with where we retrieve information and how we distribute it further. Even journalists can fall into a pit trap of misrepresentation or inaccurate data. We have to constantly be checking our sources and seeking alternative avenues when we aren't certain. Regardless, I believe both of these sites have a lot to offer educationally, though the .gov site is always going to take the cake for having that verified, secure platform. It lets readers know right away that the information presented is going to be clear, concise, and verified as accurate to the best of human ability.