Evaluation

Evaluations of Websites by Karen Jardine and Donna Reed

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN TOBACCO CONTROL

http://oncolink.upenn.edu/cancer_news/1994/smoke_media.html

I Accuracy

The editors of website are oncology doctors.

II. Authority

The page is signed. They are James Metz, MD, Editor-in-Chief and Maggie Hampshire, RN, BSN, OCN Managing Editor.

They treat people with cancer.

The University of Pennsylvania and its hospital sponsor the page.

There are links to sites that explain their qualifications.

III. Objectivity

Yes, the information is biased but based on scientific studies.These people want to get people to smoke less or better still stop.

IV Currency

The site and its links are current.The last update was in April, 2001.

V. Coverage

The site gives very complete information about cancers and their treatment.

This was an excellent and fact filled site that I would recommend to students.Students could find out information about different cancers, their symptoms, treatments, and other relevant data.The editors are well verified as doctors and other medical personnel involved in treating cancer.The University of Pennsylvania and its hospital maintain the site.

HEALTH HAZARDS OF TOBACCO: SOME FACTS

http://www.who.int/archives/ntday/ntday96/pk96_3.htm

I. Accuracy

There is no author but the site is sponsored by WHO.

II. Authority

Again, there are no signatures but it is sponsored by WHO.

III. Objectivity

They are strongly against smoking because of the illnesses and deaths it causes.They want famous athletes to stop using tobacco companies as sponsors so young people don’t think that the athletes approve of smoking.

IV. Currency

It was written for World No Tobacco Day 1996.It is not very current, but the data is reasonably accurate and could be used to study trends in smoking.

V. Coverage

It is very complete.

The World Health Organization maintains this site.The data was complete but is probably out of date now.It was set up in 1996 to encourage athletes not to use tobacco companies as sponsors.It promotes the view that smoking is harmful to people’s health and so it has a bias.I would recommend that students use this site to find data that they could compare to current data.

SECONDHAND SMOKE: THE BIG LIE

http://www.smokingsection.com/issues1.html#smoke

I. Accuracy

The author was Joe Dawson but his expert qualifications were not offered.

II. Authority

There is no explanation of Joe Dawson’s qualifications to talk about second hand smoke.

III. Objectivity

The author was biased against the idea that second hand smoke is harmful.The criticisms of groups like the EPA and how they selectively choose different studies and ignored other studies was illogical.

IV. Currency

V. Coverage

He covers the arguments that smokers give about second hand smoke well.

We would not recommend using this site.The author has no authority and no objectivity on the matter of second hand smoke.He doesn’t seem to understand how studies are deemed valid.There is also a collection of emails that are off subject and contain objectionable words.The only use it could have is to show students what to avoid on the Internet when choosing sources.