|
|
| site 1: Antiretroviral Drug Interactions in the HIV-Infected Patient | "Good"
Accuracy: Reference pages were right on top and in clear view; 58 citations (all were linked). There were informative and complete tables. The tables were based on drug treatments taken from experiments= raw data. Authority: Both of the writers (Flexner and Pham) were doctors specializing in AIDS research and worked at the John Hopkins Hospital in the AIDS services dept specializing in infectous diseases. Objectivity: The doctors were very objective and clinical in their presentation of the information. Currency: This study was done in Sept. 1997 and taken from HIV: Advances in Research and Therapy Coverage: This topic was sufficiently covered with 58 citations and a numbner of tables and graphs documenting the research.. Our opinon: We felt that this site was a good site for research. It held a lot of factual, proven information. We did feel, however, that this site should be geared towards higher level students. |
| site 2: HIV & AIDS: Rethinking AIDS Website | "Bad"
Accuracy: The article seemed to be a rehashing of biased and loosely connected data and opinions. The data was old (1993) and had some inaccurate informantion that was not supported. Authority: The author used a variety of different people that did not agree the reasons behind the HIV epidemic. But the author grouped them all together because they all agreed that HIV might not be connected to AIDS. We question wether these quotes were taken out of context or not. Objectivity: There wasn't any! The author simply stated that "HIV was not the cause of AIDS" Currency: The quotes were not current. They were stated in 1993 and 1985, when the outbreak first began. Insuficient data had been collected up until then, so no real findings could have been stated. Coverage: He used limited sources that seemed to be out dated. Many quotes were taken from the same newspaper article and his defense was based on a handful of infortamtion that he kept repeating. Our Opinoin: We feel that this site is dangerous. It might be a good teaching tool for an example of biased information and unproven, unsubstantiated fatcs, but, it delivers false information. |
| site 3: The True But Little Known Facts About Women and AIDS | "Ugly"
Accuracy: This was a ficticious and bogus site; however, at the bottom of this site there were links to actual, factual AIDS information and awareness sites. Authority: NONE. Each "scientist" was a play on words and a ficticious character. Objecivity: The point that the author of this site was trying to make, was to make sure you get your fatcs straight and to not believe everything you read. Currency: It was an up to date site, being last revised in 2001. Coverage: All the doccumentatin was fake and nofactual. Our Opinion: This sight was very humorous. It was meant to be taken that way. We feel that it is important for the children to see this site because they need to realize that they must read the articles and be aware of what they are reading. We feel that a site like this also needs to have guidance. As teachers, we should show them this site and let them see how it is an exapmle of a false information displayed in a satirical way. |