Evaluating Website Credibility

I learned about how to evaluate the credibility of a website through the "Meaningful Learning With Technology" text. Before reading I knew to look for when the site was updated as well any biases the site may express. However; before reading the text I never thought of looking for a bibliography, organization affiliations, or authority in the field. Also, some of the evaluating questions seemed to be the best tactics to ensure a reliable website. When looking at the "Save The Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus" I think of the visual presentation to verify its credibility. At the top of the site the words are off centered and the presentation is not professional. Also, if you look into the question and answer section there is opinionated answers, the answers are not logical, and the site accepts donations then states that your money is not needed. There are a number of disconnections with the information given on this site, also questioning its credibility. The Martin Luther King sight starts off unprofessionally by referring to Dr.Martin Luther King as just "King". The color schemes make it hard to read some things, and some of the links are not related to the content of the site at all. The things written were not in poor grammar but it uses profanity which is not professional. There is no way of knowing who published the site or the last time it was updated; there is no bibliography nor is there a clear intended audience. The "Dog Island Free Forever" site starts off by having a link that is not related to the content; the site is about dogs and there is a link about weather and "cute kid of the year" on the first page. Next, while the audience IS clear,it is not realistic. The site invites the dogs themselves to sign up for an account and not the dog owner. Something that the site shows that tells me it is unreliable is the fact that they would ship the dogs in a closed in crate where the dogs cant breathe. I dont know how much more I would trust a site, that "cares about dogs", that ships dogs in crates that they cant breathe in. The DHMO website is a .org website but the first site shows signs of the forms of payment they accept so they may be more interested in getting your money than giving you information. The RYT Hospital site starts off with a disclaimer on their site which tells you that their information may not be reliable. There is no showing of who posted the information, the last time it was updated, and no other organization support the site or the information. After looking at these sites and the information they gave I hope to teach my students about this early enough so that they dont have to learn about the inaccurate information provided.
*B.C.*