Letter Sent AKCA Board Members & Other Org Leaders on July 12, 2007

Greetings Select Members of AKCA Leadership,

I’d ask the AKCA leadership to consider reviewing some of the material made available at the website for hobbyists to use as source material that might also be taught those in KHA classes. An occasional review would seem in order especially in light of one of the author’s of such material noting in public forums that some of his material on the AKCA website is no longer accurate and that he might should sue people who quote it.
This is in response to a quotation on the subject of Columnaris written by the Honorable Art Lembke under "Fish Health Management (Part 6)" as at http://www.akca.org/library/koimed1.htm. Lembke responded to a poster in a thread on the subject of a news article on Columnaris and my using the AKCA library information as background on the subject, which was then posted by others at KoiShack.XXX. "First you should date that article of mine,” Lembke wrote (http://koishack.XX/forums/XXXXX), “I forgot I ever wrote that. That was back when I had hair. Got to be at least 10 years old."
Then after some interesting fill-in-the-blank-year points Lembke noted, "As I said this report was done many years ago and one should not fear Flexbacter as it can be treated with top shelf meds and can be prevented by good koi keeping. Putting Flexbacter and KHV together in the same post is a diservice as they have nothing to do with each other. Obviously this article was reprinted without my consent, but who has the time or energy to sue people."
His reference to “putting Flexbacter and KHV together” was a result of my sharing a news publication that had done this, which is sourced at: http://www.mykawartha.com/article/12529.
Secondly, the claim by Lembke that he should be asked for written consent before anyone quotes his material made available at the AKCA website seems strange (http://www.akca.org/library/koimed1.htm). And threats of lawsuits seem even stranger!

Just this week Dr. Tim Miller-Morgan, DVM, Extension Veterinarian – Aquatic Pets, Oregon Sea Grant Extension sent out a terrific summary on the subject, "Assessing web-based information," which I really appreciate and believe should be a standard for reviewing the AKCA library and included in that library.
"Increasingly ornamental fish keepers are turning to the worldwide web for information about fish husbandry, medical treatments, equipment selection, and life support system design recommendations. The quality of this information varies dramatically from peer reviewed, experimentally derived information to information supplied by companies attempting to sell products to unsupported opinions of individuals or groups. It can be very difficult for a hobbyists, retailer, wholesaler or importer to assess the quality of web-based information. How do we know what to believe? How do we know if the information is authoritative, reliable, or trustworthy? How do we determine if the information is based upon scientific research or upon years of professional experience? Many individuals maintain informational web sites or post on web boards. Some of these individuals have years of experience maintaining a particular fish species and often base their opinions on their own literature resear ch and personal experience. These individuals can be a wealth of information about the culture of particular species but how do we differentiate this type of individual from someone who is posting unsupported personal opinions?
I will briefly outline some criteria you can use to assess the quality of web-site providing information about the care or biology of ornamental fish and invertebrates."
Assessing web-based information
By Dr. Tim Miller-Morgan, DVM, Extension Veterinarian – Aquatic Pets, Oregon Sea Grant Extension
Increasingly ornamental fish keepers are turning to the worldwide web for information about fish husbandry, medical treatments, equipment selection, and life support system design recommendations. The quality of this information varies dramatically from peer reviewed, experimentally derived information to information supplied by companies attempting to sell products to unsupported opinions of individuals or groups. It can be very difficult for a hobbyists, retailer, wholesaler or importer to assess the quality of web-based information. How do we know what to believe? How do we know if the information is authoritative, reliable, or trustworthy? How do we determine if the information is based upon scientific research or upon years of professional experience? Many individuals maintain informational web sites or post on web boards. Some of these individuals have years of experience maintaining a particular fish species and often base their opinions on their own literature resear ch and personal experience. These individuals can be a wealth of information about the culture of particular species but how do we differentiate this type of individual from someone who is posting unsupported personal opinions?

I will briefly outline some criteria you can use to assess the quality of web-site providing information about the care or biology of ornamental fish and invertebrates. I based these criteria, with little modification, upon the scheme proposed in the book Web Wisdom: How to evaluate and create information quality on the web by Janet E. Alexander and Marsha Ann Tate (Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, New Jersey, 1999) and the accompanying web site, http://www3.widener.edu/Academics/Libraries/Wolfgram_Memorial_Library/Evaluate_Web_Pages/659/. I have also included a few comments based upon on my own pers onal experience.

There are 5 criteria you should consider when assessing web-based information:
1. Authority
2. Accuracy
3. Objectivity
4. Currency
5. Coverage
There are a series of question associated with each criterion and the greater the number of questions answered “yes” the more likely the source is of high information quality. Let’s take each criterion in turn.

1. Authority – this allows the reader to asses the extent to which the information is provided by a person or organization that is recognized as having specialized knowledge in this subject area.
* Is it clear who is responsible for the contents of the page?
* Is there a link to a page describing the purpose of the sponsoring organization?
* Is there a way of verifying the legitimacy of the page’s sponsor? Is there a phone number or postal address to contact for more information? (an email address is not enough)
* Is it clear who wrote the article and are the author’s qualifications for writing on this topic clearly stated?
* Is the material protected by copyright and is the name of the copyright holder listed?
2. Accuracy: This is the extent to which the information is reliable and free from errors.
* Are the sources for any factual information clearly listed so they can be verified in another source?
* If information source is cited is there a bibliography in the document?
* If the information is based upon the author’s personal experience is this clearly stated?
* If the work is original research by the author is this clearly indicated?

o If this is original research does the author provide enough information to assess the quality of research?

* Is the information free of grammatical, spelling, and typographical errors?
o These kinds of errors not only indicate a lack of quality control, but also can actually produce inaccuracies in information.

* Is it clear who has the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the content of the material?
* Is there an indication that the information has been reviewed for accuracy by a fact checker, an editor, or the peer-review process?
* If there are charts and/or graphs containing statistical data, are the charts and/or graphs clearly labeled and easy to read?
* If statistical information is presented is it clear when the data was collected?
3. Objectivity: This is the degree to which the information expresses facts or information without distortion by personal feelings or other biases.

* Is the information provided as a public service?
* Is the point of view of the author(s) clearly evident?
* Is the relationship clear between the author and the person, company, or organization responsible for the web site? This is particularly important with ornamental fish related sites since there are often multiple “hot links” between commercial, private and educational/governmental sites.
* Is the information free of advertising?
* If not, is it possible to determine the degree of influence the advertiser might have on the informational content?
* If there is any advertising on the page, is it clearly differentiated from the informational content?
* Are there links to non-profit or corporate sponsors so that the user can learn more about them?


4. Currency: The extent to which the material is up-to-date. Remember, scientific research and husbandry experience is always progressing and it is important to ensure that one is accessing the most up-to-date information.
* Are there dates on the page to indicate:
+ When the page was written?
+ When the page was first placed on the Web?
+ When the page was last revised?
+ Are the frequency of the updates describes?
* Remember, there is a difference between when the page was created, when it was put on the web and when it was last revised.
* Are there any other indications that the material is kept current such as the original sources of information cited (publication dates)?
* If material is presented in graphs and/or charts, is it clearly stated when the data was gathered?
* If the information is published in different editions, is it clearly labeled what edition the page is from?
* If taken from a print edition is title, author, publisher, date of print publication listed?
5. Coverage: This is the range of topics included in a work and the depth to which those topics are addressed.
* Is there an indication that the page has been completed, and is not still under construction?
* If there is a print equivalent to the Web page, is there a clear indication of whether the entire work is available on the Web or only parts of it?
* Is it clear if the web version contains additional information not present in the print version?
* If the material is from a work which is out of copyright has there been an effort to update the material to make it more current? Is there a way to determine which material has been updated?
* Is it obvious who is the intended audience for which this web page was designed?
* Is the material for several different audiences; is the intended audience for each type of material clear?
* Usability: This is really a sub-criterion. The usefulness of the site for the reader’s purposes.
*Is the web site easy to navigate?

* Is it easy to find the information you are looking for?
* Is it easy to backtrack to the site homepage?
* If it is not easy to use individuals will be less likely too use the page as a resource.

To see how to apply these criteria as you navigate a web site I strongly suggest that you work through the web-based tutorial at, http://muse.widener.edu/~tltr/How_to_Evaluate_9.htm. The authors of the book I mentioned above developed this exercise. The exercise will allow you to assess two, non-ornamental fish, web sites using the criteria I have described. I think you will find it an enlightening and educational exercise.
The decision to use web-based information is always up to you. Further, the responsibility for accepting and using that inform ation, especially as it relates to animal care, is also yours. So, be very careful what you accept as reliable information and always try to back that information up with several other, preferably non-web based, sources.”

Regards,
John Hawley
co-host www.Koicluboftheair.org
producer www.KoiNewsNetwork.com