BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Journals |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Journals >> Collaborative learning via WWW in legal education URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/JILT/2000/robinson_1(appendix).html |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Appendices
| Importance (IMP) - reflects the importance of this criteria on assessing the quality of the information. 4 - Essential, 3 - Important, 2 - Desirable, 1 - Indifferent, 0 - Not at all. Ease of Implementation (Ease) - reflects how easy it will be to develop the criteria in a consumer useable way, 4 - very easy, 3 - moderately easy, 2 - minor difficulty, 1 - substantial difficulty, 0 - would not be able to do. Ideas on how to implement this criteria - how the criteria could be assessed by a consumer (e.g., under the criteria Credentials: Is the name of the author listed?(Yes/No) Are his/her credentials listed? (Yes/No) |
|||
| Ranking | How to Implement | ||
| Criterion | IMP (4-0) |
Ease (4-0) |
How to implement this criteria |
| Example Credentials |
4 | 3 | Is the name of the author listed? (Y/N) ·Are his/her credentials listed? (Y/N) ·How well do the credentials match the text? (5 perfect match, 0 not related) |
| C1 Credibility | |||
| C1.1 Source | |||
| C1.1a Source (e.g., organizational information) | |||
| C1.1b Credentials | |||
| C1.1.c Conflict of Interest | |||
| C1.1d Bias | |||
| C1.2 Context(e.g., advertising, medical condition) | |||
| C1.3 Currency | |||
| C1.4 Relevance/Utility | |||
| C1.5 Editorial Review Process | |||
| C2 Content | |||
| C2.1 Accuracy | |||
| C2.2 Hierarchy of Evidence | |||
| C2.3 Original Source Stated | |||
| C2.4 Disclaimer | |||
| C2.5 Omissions Noted | |||
| C3 Disclosure | |||
| C3.1 Purpose of the site (e.g., promotional, educational) | |||
| C3.2 Profiling (capture, sharing) | |||
| C4 Links | |||
| C4.1 Selection | |||
| C4.2 Architecture | |||
| C4.3 Content | |||
| C4.4 Back Linkages and Descriptions | |||
| C5 Design | |||
| C5.1 Accessibility (e.g., can be used with low-end device) | |||
| C5.2 Logical Organization | |||
| C5.3 Internal Search Engine | |||
| C6 Interactivity | |||
| C6.1 Mechanism for Feedback | |||
| C6.2 Chat Rooms (e.g., moderator present) | |||
| C6.3 Tailoring (e.g., based on what algorithm, e.g., AHCPR) | |||
| C7 Caveats | |||
| C7.1 Alerts |
Appendix B - Pilot use of Legal Information Rating Form
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - Lawstuff | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 0 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 0 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 4 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 6 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 4 | |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 0 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 0 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 5 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 1 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 1 | ||
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 1 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 1 | ||
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 1 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 0 | ||
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 16 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 3 | 4 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 5 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 0 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 0 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 0 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 0 | Overuse of graphics | |
| Are plugins not required? | 0 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 2 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 0 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 0 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 2 | Feedback by email & form | |
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 0 | 10 | |
| Total=36 |
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - F.C.A. | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 2 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 1 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 3 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 8 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 4 | |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 0 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 0 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 5 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 1 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 0 | ||
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 1 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 1 | ||
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 1 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 0 | ||
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 15 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 4 | 5 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 5 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 1 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 3 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 1 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 1 | ||
| Are plugins not required? | 0 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 2 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 0 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 0 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 1 | ||
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 1 | 16 | |
| Total=44 |
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - L.A.C. | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 0 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 0 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 2 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 4 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 4 | |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 0 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 0 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 5 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 1 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 1 | ||
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 1 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 1 | ||
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 1 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 0 | ||
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 16 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 4 | 5 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 4 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 1 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 2 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 1 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 1 | ||
| Are plugins not required? | 1 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 3 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 2 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 1 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 1 | ||
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 1 | 19 | |
| Total=44 |
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - Law4U | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 1 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 0 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 3 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 6 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 2 | Two ex-legal aid solicitors |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 0 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 0 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 2 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 1 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 0 | Selling links to private law firms | |
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 0 | Uses cookies | |
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 0 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 1 | Outside lawyers used to check info | |
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 8 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 4 | 5 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 5 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 1 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 1 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 1 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 1 | ||
| Are plugins not required? | 0 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 3 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 0 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 0 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 1 | ||
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | 14 | |
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 0 | No alert given | |
| Total=33 |
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - LawSoc | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 1 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 1 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 5 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 9 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 4 | |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 1 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 1 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 5 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 1 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 0 | ||
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 1 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 1 | ||
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 1 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 0 | ||
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 17 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 4 | 5 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 5 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 1 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 2 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 1 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 0 | ||
| Are plugins not required? | 1 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 2 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 1 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 2 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 1 | ||
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 1 | 18 | |
| Total=49 |
| Online Legal Information Rating Form - RLC | |||
| Criterion | How to implement this criteria | Mark | Comment |
| Accuracy | Does the information appear to be accurate? | 1 | |
| Are there links to relevant legislation and case reports? | 1 | ||
| Is the original source stated? | 0 | ||
| Does the disclaimer describe limitations, purpose, scope, authority, and currency of information (0-5)? | 4 | ||
| Is it made clear that the information provided is not a substitute for professional advice? | 1 | ||
| Are any omissions noted? | 0 | 7 | |
| Source | How credible is the source? (see scale below) | 4 | |
| Is the name of the author listed? | 0 | ||
| Are his/her credentials listed? | 0 | ||
| How well do the credentials match the text? (5 = perfect match, 0 = unrelated) | 5 | ||
| Is the content provided in the public's interest? | 1 | ||
| Is any possible conflict of interest noted? | 0 | ||
| Does the information appear to be balanced? | 1 | ||
| Does the source appear to be unbiased? | 0 | ||
| Is the site not selling a product? | 1 | ||
| Is the site's purpose disclosed? | 1 | ||
| Is no user information captured (apart from feedback)? | 1 | ||
| Is privacy of personal information assured? | 1 | ||
| Is there an editorial review process? | 1 | ||
| Is the editorial review process explained? | 0 | 16 | |
| Currency | Is there a date stamp at the bottom of each page? | 1 | |
| How current is the material? (5 = < one month, 0 = > two years old) | 5 | 6 | |
| Usability | How useful is the information? (0-5) | 5 | |
| Are hyperlinks useful? | 1 | ||
| Are hyper links properly identified, structured and authenticated? (0-3) | 2 | ||
| Is there a description of linked sites? | 1 | ||
| Is a graphical browser not required? | 1 | ||
| Are plugins not required? | 1 | ||
| Which browser version is required (v2=3, v3=2, v4=1)? | 3 | ||
| Is the site logically organised? | 1 | ||
| Generic search engine = 2, Javascript engine = 1 | 0 | ||
| Quality of search responses (0-2) | 0 | ||
| Feedback mechanism - email = 1, form = 2 | 1 | ||
| Is there a chat room? | 0 | ||
| If so, is a moderator present? | 0 | ||
| Is any information-tailoring algorithm disclosed? | 0 | ||
| Are users alerted when they move to an external site? | 1 | 17 | |
| Total=46 |
