Apologises for cross posting.
(Re: Request: 'websites chosen for inclusion in the collection' policy.
My email call for any ideas on website/page evaluation methods helpful to assess and record why I have chosen some websites and others have not been chosen)
Morning all,
Sorry this has taken some time to get together, but I find putting together collection policies all-consuming (!)
Thanks to all of you who replied to my request, and gave some really very useful insights into how to approach this type of policy writing for my collection. A number of you pointed me to the same resources, which told me something.
The one I am finding most useful is BIOME: biome.ac.uk/guidelines/eval/
This hits the spot at the moment. There are various pages of resources, and this helps make for a consistent approach.
Also, the current BMJ theme of the Internet and quality/trusting of sites is proving a timely issue: www.bmj.com
The HONcode website www.hon.ch also has interesting literature on the evaluation techniques topic, and this standard is the one of many that is starting to make an impact on the quality of health websites.
However, working more on what my policy for including websites into my information collection (for use by collection users) looks like, than how to evaluate each website for quality, means that the BIOME site offers a lot of information for contextualizing such policies at this time.
Lets hope that all our individual efforts finally merge into a all encompassing and adopted set of standards in the near(ish) future. For now, I appreciate all your thoughts.
Have a good week.
best wishes,
Lizzie.
Ms. Elizabeth J. Eastwood BA(Hons) MLIS ALA
Information Manager
Arthritis Care
18 Stephenson Way
London
NW1 2HD
Tel: 020 7380 6577 (Direct)
Fax: 020 7380 6505
EMail: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.arthritiscare.org.uk
|