Answers

1) @http://www.dhmo.org/ **completely bogus!** Everything on the site is an outright lie. They just don't disclose the fact that dihydrogen monoxide [mon- ok -sahyd] is another name for water.

2) @http://www.cis.org/ **admits their bias** Their mission statement is essentially honest in admitting "The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted."

3) @http://www.marshall.org/ **does not admit their bias** They are dishonest in saying "Our mission is to encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." Everything on their site relating to global warming is hostile to the theory. They are not interested at all in sound science. Their only interest is in policy.

4) @http://www.wto.org/ **legitimate** This actually is the home page for the World Trade Organization.

5) @http://www.thedogisland.com/ **completely bogus!** There is no such place. But you don't have to tell your dog that.

6 . __ [] __

7 . __ [] __
 * fake** This is NOT a valid website to use in scholarly research! This site is a fairly obvious joke - octopi are sea animals and do not live in trees (in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere). However, the site is very content-rich and well-organized. If the subject were the (not real) endangered Pacific Northwest Pine Owl, would you be able to tell the site was a fake?
 * **RELEVANCE** - the audience appears to be adults interested in preserving endangered species; the presence of an online store selling merchandise gives it the appearance of an organization
 * **AUTHORITY** - the site author is someone named Lyle Zapato, whose name links to a personal website with no scientific credentials; it is clearly stated that "the site is not associated with any school or educational organization"; and the only contact information is the author's blog
 * **ACCURACY** - most of the sources from this site link back to the author's blog, and many of the others lead to .net, .org, or .com websites written in the same tone as this.
 * **PURPOSE** - the content makes it clear that this website exists to entertain


 * an entertaining hoax** This is NOT a valid website to use in scholarly research! This site is a little more tricky; it's an example of a website with entirely fake information, but designed to look as if it's legit. A quick glance at the home page makes it seem like any other research hospital, but look again; the activities of this "medical center" don't bear close examination.
 * **CURRENCY** - there is no copyright date apparent on the website
 * **RELEVANCE** - the content appears to be written for potential patients
 * **AUTHORITY** - the website relies on its self-proclaimed research hospital status as its authority; it is affiliated with a medical school that, according to Google, doesn't exist; and the only contact information is an address that Google Maps cannot find, and many links do not work.
 * **ACCURACY** - though it appears unbiased with accurate spelling and grammar, all the information about the hospital, its staff and its research is stated without any references at all; many of the links are not functioning
 * **PURPOSE** - the site's purpose appears to highlight its so-called medical breakthroughs, but the content reveals this site to be an entertaining hoax

Adapted from Central Michigan University