The Credibility of Three Websites on E-tailers
By Sue Yi

Because of the quick adoption of the Internet, and the rapid movement of this industry, e-tailers have been in the spotlight by all forms of media. Shop.org, Internetweek.com, and Businessweek.com, which all have a great deal of information concerning e-tailers, are the three websites that will be examined for its credibility.

The credibility of these sites will be determined by two different methods: the MIDIS method, devised by a New York Times editor, and the Librarian method.

Shop.org deemed itself "the e-tailers knowledge exchange." It is the association for retailers online and a division of the National Retail Foundation.

Under the MIDIS method, Shop.org would be categorized in the Special Interest Group, which is the third tier down its hierarchy. At this tier, Shop.org is characterized as possibly having an agenda, but will that the information on the website would not necessarily be flawed.

The Librarian method, which can be used to analyze websites, is rated based on five categories: Authority, Accuracy, Objectivity, Currency, and Coverage.

Shop.org scored poorly on Authority and Currency. For Authority, no contact information of the organization’s directors or web creators was given, and it was not deemed an official site. In regards to currency, no specific dates were given for the site’s updates.

The site did score well on Accuracy , Objectivity and Coverage though. All "factual" information had included its sources. No stance was taken on any issue and no advertisements were on the website. The site was well designed and edited, with the intent of the site clearly stated and explained.

Internetweek.com fared almost as well as Shop.org. Internetweek, which referred to itself as "Connecting the enterprise, customers & supplies," is part of the TechWeb Business Technology Network that delivers news and insight for enterprise readers.

With the MIDIS method, the site also fell under the category of Special Interest Group, with a possible agenda. Yet the site was more credible using the Librarian method.

For Authority, the editors of the site were listed, as well as their contact information. The writers were also on the site, but their qualifications were not listed.

Like Shop.org, the pages were well edited and sources were given for "factual" information. No stance was taken in any of the articles, and the intended purposes were clearly stated and effectively covered.

Yet unlike Shop.org, Internetweek.com was copyrighted at the current year, and included the dates of the articles and research included on the site. The site did have ads though, which were applicable to the site’s content.

The last of the three sites to be examined is Businessweek.com, which is based on its magazine. The magazine, Businessweek, is regarded as a reliable and informative source of business news and issues, and has won many awards for its publication. Yet their website did not seem as reliable as its magazine.

Businessweek.com, like the other two sites, were categorized under the Special Interest Group, using the MIDIS method. The sites’ credibility did not rank much higher using the Librarian method either.

Little information was given about the people who worked on the website. No webmaster was given. The writers’ names were given on each article, yet contact information to the writers was not provided.

What hindered the website were its credibility and its biases. Not all the "factual" information in the articles was always referenced to its source. The biases of the writers or of the actual magazine were also not provided, and there were ads on practically every page.

Yet, the currency of the site was up to date. The website was copyrighted the current year, and all the articles had their publication date.

The Internet has expanded in multiple ways. Not only can we shop through it, but we can also gather information from all over the world, just by the click of a mouse. But the credibility of the information on the web is an issue that people need to be more cautious for. Anyone can post anything on the Internet, yet there are no types of checks or accountability for false information posted on the World Wide Web, as there are with other forms of media.