CRAAP Evaluation:     http://www.justfacts.com/

Currency             

• Copyright 2016
• I could not find any information on when exactly they update information
• Claims of “latest research” – there were recent study dates but didn’t seem like they were regularly updated
• Every link I clicked worked
• The site was started in 1997 and “formalized” in 2007

Relevance          

• This site is mostly organized by issues, ex: “gun control,” “unions,” “abortion,” etc.
• They provide a LOT of information and explanation for each topic, excessively so. Each topic feels like a legal document on why you should support their stance on a topic.
• If you want to find current positions from each potential candidate in 2016 you will be disappointed-if it is there I couldn’t easily find it
• They also have an App and Initiatives sections that are admittedly more biased and less efficiently checked for truth

Authority            

• It does list the people in charge
• The president of the site has a degree in Mechanical Engineering-this personally bothered me because having that degree does not seem relevant to running a site providing political fact information
• The site intentionally does not disclose who funds it, “private donors,” whose privacy they ensure-questionable
• The site very prominently displays big name organizations that have cited their information, on every page I visited-I’m not sure what their goal is by doing this. Perhaps to appear more legitimate; compensating for something?
• They do provide contact information
• It is a .com site

Accuracy             

• The state that they are conservative/libertarian and claim to be unbiased in their reporting of facts
• The language was occasionally emotional but not overly so.
• Professional appearance
• Proper grammar
• Citations of information
• They lay out “Standards of Credibility” for some of their information and admittedly not others
• Most of this information is out of my field (I’m not a subject-matter expert)

Purpose              

• “A resource for independent thinkers”
• Conservative/libertarians that are reporting unbiased facts -I don’t believe this because their information (“facts”) supports their views
• They don’t appear to be selling advertising
• They don’t disclose how, specifically, they are funded so it is hard to tell if they may be supporting particular groups

Conclusion:

The overall feeling I got from the language of their articles was that they were trying hard to sell me on a particular conclusion. I think if you already agree with their views you will find them more credible. I think they are somewhat credible if you take their obvious ideological slant into consideration. You can get a good overview of conservative/libertarian views on particular issues.

CRAAP Evaluation:     http://www.factcheck.org/

Currency             

• Copyright 2016
• Many promoted articles and links to articles from January to February 2016
• Current tweets
• All links I checked worked correctly
• Established 1993
• Appears to be updated very regularly

Relevance          

• Most articles are about the current debates between potential presidential candidates
• Many articles about specific issues/topics and relevant facts to support claims or to disprove them
• 2016 election candidates “players guide” and TV ads
• Archived articles about President Obama, Joe Biden, Healthcare, Climate Change, Immigration, Guns, and Abortion – all recent/current issues

Authority            

• Annenberg Public Policy Center – of the University of Pennsylvania
• by Walter Annenberg
• Funding is specified in detail – through APPC grants, Flora Family Foundation and individual public donations
• individual donors giving over $1000 are disclosed
• Contact information is available

Accuracy             

• Detailed sources and citations are used
• Professional appearance
• Correct grammar
• Most of the information is out of my field (I am not a subject-matter expert)
• Generally fits with what I know
• I did not detect an ideological slant

Purpose              

• Mission is to address public policy at local, state, and federal levels
• No advertising
• Don’t appear to be selling anything
• They answer people’s questions about the statements politicians and news media make to determine what they are based on – providing the original links and quotes to what was said

Conclusion:        

I got a much better vibe from this site. It is extremely organized and very specific to the exact statements that are made and questions asked/answered. I like that they disclose their funding but honestly I wouldn’t necessarily be able to analyze it for issues. It seemed much more interactive. I feel that if I asked a relevant question I would get an answer and links to relevant sources to back it up. I will probably use this if I have political questions in the future.