Evaluation of internet site design and functionality

¶ … censorship of the Internet, especially of pornographic materials, is a topic that can be easily resolved is being naive. This is a complicated issue with enough gray areas to be thoroughly debated and to demand that comprehensive information from both sides be studied. Freedom of speech has always been a thorny subject, and it becomes no easier when considering the Internet that can be accessed by individuals of all ages and backgrounds from around the world.

Most of the websites dealing with this topic are slanted in one way or another based on the political, religious or moral stance of the URL's authors. It is refreshing, then, when a writer takes a stab at equally presenting arguments for and against online pornographic censorship. The website "Pornography and the Internet in the United States" (http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/fall1999/www_presentations/c_hogg/print.htm) was written by Charles Hogg as part of an assignment for Library Studies 500: Foundations of Information Technology. It provides a definition of pornography and obscene sex, arguments pro and con on the censorship of Internet pornography and a legal history of pornography suppression in the United States. Based on suggestions regarding how websites are to be reviewed to determine their value, this URL should get high marks in terms of its accuracy and thoroughness, non-biased approach, degree of information contained and ease of use. It does fall short, however, in its currency, suggestions for follow-up actions, links and specific examples.

Accuracy ranks as the most important factor when evaluating a website, according to many materials written on this subject. The Good, the Bad, The Ugly, a book on website comparison, stresses that visitors should seriously question the reliability of a URL and its author/sponsor. "How to Evaluate a Website," an online location by the University at Albany -- SUNY (http://www.ubwenge.org/PiasToys/evaluateoutside.html), warns "not to take information at face value" and to "look for point-of-view and evidence of bias." Hogg's site "Pornography and the Internet" presents an objective historical foundation and balanced information on both the reasons to and not to censor online pornography. Although much of the material is written at a more sophisticated level than the education of the average Internet reader, the site offers a very good overview of the legal aspects of the issue, as well as pro and con views based on John Stuart Mill's (1806-1873) harm theory. This argued that the state can justify interference with the conduct of individual citizens only when it is clear that doing so will prevent a greater harm to others. Hogg's URL relies on this more impartial theory, rather than look at the beliefs of those who are more emotionally involved with this issue due to their moral or political bent. After reading his coverage of the topic, one has a good base on which to build.

This site also receives high grades on other checklist items noted on the Internet review website by ERIC Digests (www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed430564.html) in terms of how the information is presented clearly, "arranged in an orderly fashion," "easily followed from an introductory index," "a clear tie among purpose," and all relevant to the subject matter. An outline of sections with links is located on the home page. "Next" and "Previous" buttons help the reader move ahead or backward as needed. In addition is a link that includes the entire article on one page so it can be printed offline. "Pornography and the Internet" is "logically sequenced," and "the information flows in an orderly manner." Inclusion of references and biography add to the material (ERIC).

The "Pornography and the Internet" website does fail to meet all criteria, however. "How to Evaluate a Website," from SUNY states that links should be relevant and appropriate and that visitors should not assume the linked sites are the best available. It is necessary, therefore, to investigate additional sites on the topic. Some of the links that are included on Hogg's URL are no longer functioning. Those links that are still working, such as the American Civil Liberty Union, tend to be against censorship rather than in favor of this issue. The problem of nonworking links has to do with the site's lack of currency. It does not appear to have been updated since 1999 when the report was first written. Much has occurred in this area over the past four years that is not covered. Even the original article did not have a section that hypothesized future scenarios given the present state of affairs or that suggested ways for the reader to keep up-to-date on the subject matter. "Content gaps" and "learner activity" were also areas covered on the ERIC site that demonstrate where Hogg's URL is problematic. It would have been helpful if he would have included some examples of individuals and/or organizations that are taking separate stands on this issue and additional activities or discussion areas.