The following contains an evaluation of two sites based on the CRAAP (currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose) test.
Click here for the table format made in Word!
Just Facts
Currency
Although there are few dates on their broad topic pages (like Voter Knowledge), there is data and research that is dated to be from recent years (2016). “Daily” posts are dated, the last one being August 8, 2019 showing that the site has been maintained within the last two months, but not weekly (or daily).
It is reasonable to say that this website is periodically updated since its creation (1997), considering the recent updates and functional links & pages.
Relevance
Though the information that this site contains is not relevant to my keywords from Assignment 4.1, it is relevant to current issues and my demographic (ie: racial issues, voter knowledge, education). Although it does hold seemingly credible information about each topic, it’s mostly just history or Q&A on each page.
Authority
The “About Us” page contains information on the fact that they are a non-profit organization, that began as a research institute, with several official sources of their information. The site contains a “.com” domain, but the resources used are said to be pulled from official, credible resources (such as government and university-owned research). It is also mentioned that “Standards of Credibility” are utilized, which consist of their pledge to use only the most credible sources to post “facts”. The president/co-founder, James Agresti, is proven to be shown on various television news channels concerning his revered book Rational Conclusions.
Both the president and chairman of the organization are mentioned in the “Who We Are” section of this very same page. This section mentions their qualifications and their pledge to neutrality. One is able to contact the site owners by emailing them through the website, but the site does not give an official email to use outside of the website.
Accuracy
As mentioned above, the website mentions several credible sources of information that are cited throughout pages of ranging topics. From what I’ve read, there seems to be no mention on posts being peer-reviewed, but it is said that the information that is used has been utilized by several official entities.
Though I am not an SME, it seems the data, though appearing credible (or as “fact”), is almost biased in the way that it is distributed. Further information could have been gathered to contrast the underlying point each page made. For example, there are several incriminating points against organizations like Planned Parenthood or certain medical practices on the Abortion page, but there isn’t as much information regarding the positive aspect. It seems this page is “factually” biased against the concept of abortion, which comes off as unprofessional.
Purpose
I noticed that there is an underlying conservative bias in the framework of this website. But, as the e-book states, this doesn’t necessarily constitute the information as nonfactual. The site claims to post “just facts”, and that’s what it does, regardless of the partiality contained.
Fact Check
Currency
Right off the bat, one is able to see the date of the last post created on this website. While scrolling, it is obvious that there are posts made multiple times a week, pointing to a well-maintained website. Though there are a multitude of links (from the date it was created- 15 years ago -until now) , all of the ones that were clicked during my navigation of this website were functional.
Relevance
Just as the last site did not have information relevant to my search from Assignment 4.1, neither does this one. But, again, it definitely holds useful information for people that are my age and in the same area (information about the Trump Administration, environmental issues, etc.) and even provides a larger range of topics to sift through. It also uses sources from modern platforms (like Twitter) to display information, showing an initiative to branch out.
Authority
There are several links in their “About Us” tab that distinguish between their goal, who they are, and their credentials. All of their “staff” have detailed bios with outstanding qualifications. There is also a page for their funding information and several forms of contact with an email address and two phone numbers.
Accuracy
The posts on this site appear very credible, complete with a review system (as seen on their “Our Process” page) and visible source of information. For example, I did a search on this site to contrast the information found on Just Facts, and the two sites conflict on knowledge pertaining to the topic of abortion. Aside from the overall conflict between what each site says is fact, a striking difference between the two abortion pages is that Fact Check provides a lengthy list of cites.
Purpose
It seems the main focus of this website is to correct false information concerning politics. From what I could see, there was no underlying bias, as the focus was correcting false news.