How To Identify Credible Sources On The

HOW TO IDENTIFY CREDIBLE SOURCES ON THE WEB
by
Dax R. Norman
National Security Agency
PGIP Class 0001
Unclassified thesis submitted to the Faculty

of the Joint Military Intelligence College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science of Strategic Intelligence.
19 December 2001
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and
do not reflect the official policy or position of the
Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I am thankful for the endless patience of my wife and
daughter, who for two years worked and played one man short of a full team,
and often carried the ball when I should have.
I am grateful to Professor Jerry P. Miller, Director of the Competitive
Intelligence Center at Simmons College in Boston, for his patient and
persistent help in constructing the thesis survey.
I would also like to thank LTC (ret) Karl Prinslow, at the time, a
contractor employed by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office, for his
practical assistance, and encouragement.
Thank you must also go to my Thesis Chairman, Dr. Alex Cummins and
Thesis Reader Robyn Winder for their conscientious support of the Joint
Military Intelligence College Master’s program by volunteering to serve as
Thesis Chairman and Reader.
ii
CONTENTS
List of Graphics……………………………………………………………………………..…. v
Chapter
Page
1. INTRODUCTION TO OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION…………………………...1
Validity Matters, 2
Credibility Counts More, 3
The Challenge of Credible Sources, 4
Assumptions, 6
A Unique Study, 6
Review of Thesis, 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………………...10
Range of Thought, 10
Every Man’s Printing Press, 17
Information Gaps, 18
3. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………………….19
Key Issue: OSINF Relevance to Intelligence, 19

Survey Development, 20
Research Question and Survey Structure, 22
Research Question: Credibility Criteria, 24
Research Question: Credible Enough to Use, 26
Key Issue: Official Credibility of Criteria, 29
Key Issue: Analyst’s Objectivity and Well Known Titles, 30
Key Issue: Foreign Language Sources, 31
Key Issue: Classified vs. Unclassified Sources, 32
Ethics, 33
4. FINDINGS…………………………………………………………………………...…..34
Key Issue: OSINF Relevance to Intelligence, 35

Research Question: How to Identify Credible Web Sites, 37
Survey Findings, Credibility Criteria, 47
Survey Findings, Credible Enough for Intelligence Use, 51
Survey Findings, Official Credibility Criteria, 53
Survey Findings, Objectivity and Foreign Language Sources, 55
Survey Findings, Classified vs. Unclassified Sources, 58
5. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………..………….62
iii
Appendices
A. Web Site Evaluation Worksheets……………………………………….…66
B. Survey to Industry and Academia……………………………………..….77
C. Survey to Intelligence Community………………………………………..88
D. Criteria Analysts Currently Use to Judge Credibility………………..101
Bibliography………………………………………………………….………...…………..106
Annex 1. Survey Results (not included in original thesis.) ………………………109
iv
LIST OF GRAPHICS
Tables
Page
1. Question 8a to 8r, Recommended Criteria and Relative Values (Mean)…

….48
2. Questions 9a-f. Required Level of Source Credibility”

for Intelligence Products. ……………………...…………………………..………
…....53
3. Question 5. Part 1, Official Criteria for Unclassified Sources……………
…....54
4. Question 5. Part 2, Official Criteria for Classified Sources…………………
…55
5. Questions 7a, b, c, j, k, l, m, Credibility of Well-Known Titles……………...
…57
6. Questions 7d, e, f, g, h, i, Credibility of Obscure Titles, and

Foreign Web Sites…………………………………………………………………………
57
7. Questions 7n to 7s, Credibility of All Classified Sources……………………
….59
8. Credibility of Open Sources Compared to Classified Sources……………...
….60
9. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without Annotations…………………..
…..61
v
10. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, Spot…………………………
…66
11. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, ITU……………………………
69
12. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, NY Times……………….…
…71
13.Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, Korea………………………..
…73
14.Blank Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet……………………………………….….
76
15.Survey Question 6: Credibility Criteria Analysts Currently Use…………...
101
Graph
1. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without Annotations…………………..
…..61
vi
ABSTRACT
TITLE OF THESIS: How to Identify Credible Sources on the Web.
STUDENT: Dax R. Norman
CLASS NO. PGIP 0001 DATE: 19 December 2001
THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR: Dr. Alex Cummins
SECOND COMMITTEE MEMBER: Robyn Winder
There is little argument today that open sources and the World-Wide-
Web have a role to play in intelligence, but little has been written about
evaluating the credibility of Web sites and communicating that evaluation to
analysts. Such a capability is needed because of the increased opportunity to
collect open source intelligence from the Web; the ever increasing cost of
classified collection; and the ever-present demand on analysts to analyze and
report at the edge of their knowledge. With so many intelligence sources
available, including the Web, analysts must be able to identify credible
sources. The alternative is to evaluate every piece of information collected
from every Web site of intelligence interest. Due to the enormous size of the
Web, evaluating data validity is not practical.
That is why the Intelligence Community (IC) needs a generally agreed
upon set of criteria for evaluating Web sites of potential intelligence value.
Credible Web sites can be identified. However, without these criteria, and a
method to share the results, hundreds of analysts will repeatedly find the
same Web sites of dubious credibility as other analysts; they will attempt to
evaluate the sites’ usefulness and credibility by many widely different
standards, and share their results with only a few close coworkers. The
quality of these Web site evaluations will vary widely based on the subject of
the Web site and the subject expertise of the evaluator.
This thesis collected criteria recommended by professional Web
searchers and surveyed industry, academia, and the Intelligence Community
for their opinions of those criteria. From this survey the author developed a
weighted list of credibility criteria and a methodology that both the subject-
matter expert and the subject-matter novice will find useful. With these
criteria and the relative credibility scale, subject-matter experts throughout
the IC can evaluate Web sites within their area of expertise and share that
source evaluation with the entire IC.
This thesis identifies valid criteria for evaluating the credibility of open
source Web sites; presents a relative credibility scale based on benchmarked
Web sites; identifies the target level of credibility for all intelligence sources;
offers a Web site evaluation worksheet; and compares the credibility of open
sources to classified sources. Credible information can be located on the Web,
and although subject-matter experts are the best evaluators, any analyst can
evaluate a Web site when he does not have a subject-matter expert to assist
him.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION
Along with the information technology revolution has come an equally
important increase in information access and information sources via the
World-Wide-Web. However, such abundance is a double-edged sword because
the Web contains every type of print, audio, and visual data from every type
of source, including children, students, professors, conspiracy theorists,
researchers, advertisers, government data, and government misinformation.
Information analysts must sort the useful information from the junk.
However, what is useless for one person may be just right for someone else.
This thesis will establish Intelligence Community criteria for identifying
credible Web sites from untrustworthy, or non-credible Web sites. This thesis
used a survey structured to answer several key issues and the research
question: how to identify credible sources on the Web. The hypothesis was
that credible Web sites can be confidently identified by evaluating the Web
sites based on criteria recommended by professional Web searchers and
agreed to by intelligence analysts. Most analysts today apparently evaluate
the data rather than the source.
1
VALIDITY MATTERS
This thesis will also show that most analysts do not attempt to identify
credible sources, but evaluate the validity of the data in the sources. There
is a common misunderstanding about validity and credibility. Validity is an
attribute of information. Validity also describes information as
simultaneously relevant and meaningful. Validity can also refer to the proper
use of logic to reach a conclusion.1 In psychometrics, validity can have
several meanings, including the proper use, or function of a measurement
tool.2 This thesis uses validity as an attribute of data that is verifiably correct.
Validity is what the analyst means when he asks, is this data correct?
Although validity is important to intelligence, it always describes the
information rather than the source, and alone does not measure believability,
which this thesis calls credibility. Because discrete elements of information
can be examined and compared, the validity of information is of most
concern to analysts because analysts know how to check validity. They
examine the data for consistency, verify it with other sources, or verify that it
functions as expected. Although consistently valid data can lead to credible
sources, the goal should be to identify sources as credible so that every
document from the source does not have to be validated. Establishing
source credibility should be of greater interest to analysts because they
cannot become expert in every subject on which they may be expected to
1
G. & C. Merriam Co., Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA:
G. & G. Merriam Co., 1975), under “Valid.” Cited hereafter as Webster’s.
2
Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967), 75.
2
report, because organization focus changes, analysts change jobs, and there
just is not enough time to learn it all and still report.
This thesis will provide a tool for the general analysts to evaluate Web
sites as potential intelligence sources. Although Web site evaluations are
best done by subject-matter experts, analysts are often expected to report on
unfamiliar topics, and must discern for themselves if a source is credible.
Experts will also be able to use the recommended criteria and credibility
scale to evaluate Web sites in a consistent manner that other people will
understand, and can repeat.3
CREDIBILITY COUNTS MORE
To judge validity, an analyst must understand the issue, or technology,
or strategy, or politics very well for every data element included in his
reporting. Because every analyst cannot possibly be an expert on every
subject, they rely on sources that they trust to provide valid data. This trust
in a person or group is a measure of credibility. A credible source offers
“reasonable grounds for being believed.”4 This is the meaning intended in
this thesis for credibility.
These credible sources are an essential element of intelligence
analyses because analysts are often expected to report on topics, in which
they are not expert, or that are too complex for any one person to
3
See Appendix A, Web Site Evaluation Worksheet, for the relative credibility
scale, benchmark Web site evaluation worksheets, and a blank evaluation
worksheet.
4
Webster’s, under “Credible.”
3
understand. Because it is impractical for analysts to validate every data
element from every source, the focus should be on identifying credible
sources. In the area of Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), this is even more
important because of the widespread use of OSINT by the other intelligence
disciplines, and the multitude of unclassified open sources.5 The source must
be judged credible before the data can be judged valid. Of course this can
become a circular argument, but in the end it is more useful to have a
credible source than a valid data element. For example, it would be better to
know where to find a foreign leader’s official travel schedule, than to know
where the leader will travel next. This is true because this credible source
can tell one where the next trip will be, any changes to his next trip, and the
details of subsequent trips. If a source provides valid data consistently, it
will soon be judged a credible source. However, once judged credible, it is
less important that every data element the source provides is validated.
Note that open source information (OSINF) is public or proprietary
information available to anyone for a fee or for free. OSINF becomes open
source intelligence (OSINT) when it is used by the Intelligence Community to
answer a intelligence question.
THE CHALLENGE OF CREDIBLE SOURCES
Regardless of the credibility of a source, or the validity of the data,
analysts are more likely to use the sources most accessible to them. The
5
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of
Military and Associated Terms, URL:
<http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/f/02542.html>, accessed 13 February
2000. Cited hereafter as Joint Pub 1-02. This thesis uses intelligence disciplines, such
as OSINT, as defined in Joint Pub 1-02.
4
Web has the potential to put a worldwide library on the desk of every analyst.
With today’s search engines and Web-directories an analyst can conduct a
single search of the Web in seconds that would take a librarian a career to
complete. This is because the librarians know which sources are credible
based on their own use of the sources or recommendations from other
librarians and subject-matter experts. Therefore, it stands to reason that
intelligence analysts, who do not have access to a subject-matter expert on
every reportable issue, should have access to credible information sources on
the Web. How to identify credible sources on the Web is the challenge of this
thesis.
In an ideal world, subject-matter experts in every field would identify
credible sources, and index them for everyone to use. However, even in such
a world there would be disagreement on what is credible. Therefore, the
research question that this thesis will answer is how to identify credible
sources on the Web. The focus is on Web sites because library science and
publishers have already established acceptable standards in the print media
for credibility. Such standards include peer-review in scientific journals,
editorial review in newspapers, independent verification of facts, and the
proper labeling of commentary and advertisements in magazines. In the
absence of such standard practices on the Web, it is up to the reader to
judge. With the help of expert Web searchers from industry, defense, and
intelligence, this thesis establishes a set of common credibility evaluation
criteria, which can be used by subject-matter experts as well as analysts
reporting on an unfamiliar issue. Some subjectivity remains, but the criteria
5
are established which provide analysts with the tools and vocabulary to
measure credibility of sources and describe a source’s relative
trustworthiness, known as credibility.
ASSUMPTIONS
This thesis does make some assumptions. The first two are that open
source intelligence is less costly than classified intelligence, and therefore is
the preferred source if it can be trusted. The third assumption is that
credibility is relative to its intended use and user. For example, a CNN
broadcast might be sufficiently credible for indications and warning (I&W),
but not sufficiently credible for basic intelligence for which the analyst has
some time to conduct research, or when the product will become the
background for future reporting. Likewise, a second-hand report of the
humanitarian conditions in a country may be credible enough for a person
planning an overseas visit; however, only a first-hand report from an
authoritative, unbiased source may be considered for the subject of an
intelligence report. Therefore, a relative credibility scale is necessary rather
than an absolute determination of credible or non-credible.
A UNIQUE STUDY
Although other studies establish criteria for evaluating Web sites, such
as Alison Cooke’s Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on the
Internet, I have not found a study that focuses on establishing the credibility
6
of Web sites.6 Cooke’s work is an excellent guide to evaluating the overall
quality of many types of Web sites. The closest Joint Military Intelligence
College study found is MAJ Robert M. Simmons’s unclassified thesis, Open
Source Intelligence: An Examination of Its Exploitation, 1995.7 Simmons
focuses on the accessibility and use of open source, not the credibility of
sources. Although Reva Basch’s Secrets of the Super Net Searchers includes
the question of credibility, it is less formal than this study and asks the
credibility question differently of each expert interviewed.8 Secrets of the
Super Net Searchers does not focus on any one issue, but asks many
questions of the industry experts. However, many criteria from Basch’s book
were included in the thesis survey used for this study. This thesis surveyed
analysts from defense, intelligence, and academia, as well as industry, to
establish common criteria for evaluating the credibility of Web sites.9 The
broad survey population, which included industry, academia, and
intelligence, and the focus on credibility, make this study unique.
REVIEW OF THESIS
6
Alison Cooke, Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on the Internet
(New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1999).
7
Major Robert M. Simmons, USA, Open Source Intelligence: An Examination
of Its Exploitation in the Defense Intelligence Community, MSSI Thesis (Washington,
DC: Joint Military Intelligence College, August 1995.)
8
Reva Basch, Secrets of the Super Net Searchers (Wilton, CT : Pemberton
Press, 1996).
9
E-mail Survey, “Joint Military Intelligence College Thesis Survey: Credibility
Criteria for Web Sites,” conducted by the author, July-August 2001. Hereafter cited
as Survey.
7
The research for this thesis began with a literature review, found in
Chapter two. From the literature several authors were selected who either
represent a significant point of view or are in a position to influence other
analysts. The objective of the literature review was to identify what is
already known, or thought about identifying credible sources on the Web.
However, the literature also revealed tangent issues that influence how or
when unclassified open sources are used in intelligence products. Most
significantly, the literature review identified the criteria recommended by
expert Web searchers for judging the credibility of Web sites. Those criteria
were included in the thesis survey, which was the primary research tool used
by the author.
Chapter three describes the research methodology employed. That
methodology included gathering expert criteria from the literature review;
developing and administering the survey to both industry, academic, and
intelligence analysts, coding the survey results and entering the data into the
SPSS statistical program; and performing the calculations which answered
the research questions and the key issues. The recommended credibility
criteria were determined by identifying the criteria that analysts most often
rated as contributing 50 percent or more to the credibility of a Web site; then
determining the relative weights for each criterion and a relative credibility
scale. Finally, four Web sites of known credibility were evaluated as
benchmark sites. Chapter three describes this process in detail as well as
how the target source-credibility level was determined for most intelligence
products.
8
The results of the survey calculations are shown in the findings
Chapter four. The findings chapter, like the methodology chapter, is
organized to answer the research question and each key issue, which in short
include the following key issues: open source relevance to intelligence,
knowledge of existing official criteria, analysts’ objectivity, credibility of
foreign Web sites in English, credibility of classified versus unclassified
sources; and the research questions of evaluation criteria, and needed level
of credibility,
The conclusions are in Chapter five, and include analysis of the survey
results. The thesis concludes that credible Web sites can be identified,
evaluated, and shared with other analysts. Known weaknesses in the survey
are mentioned in the findings and conclusions chapters. Chapter six also
includes a recommendation for implementing this evaluation procedure in
the Intelligence Community. The appendices include a copy of the surveys
used; the competed evaluation worksheets for the benchmarked Web sites;
and a blank evaluation worksheet.
9
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
RANGE OF THOUGHT
Open source information (OSINF) has been widely accepted as a
necessary element of all-source intelligence reporting, as demonstrated by
Director of Central Intelligence Directive 2/12, which established the
Community Open Source Program Office.10 Most experts agree that OSINF
should support classified intelligence collection. However, I think there has
not been significant attention paid to the issue of identifying credible Web
sites, a significant source of unclassified information. The Web makes foreign
newspapers and “gray” literature (documents with limited distribution such
as company brochures, or equipment manuals), more accessible, as well as
expert opinions, and research projects from universities, just to name some
valuable sources.11 The issue of identifying credible Web sites affects
everyone who uses the Internet, including defense, intelligence, academia,
and industry. Therefore, the literature reviewed for this study included
documents from all of these communities of interest. The authors presented
in this study include: Robert David Steele of Open Source Solutions Inc.; Dr.
Wyn Bowen of Kings College, London, writing for Jane’s Intelligence Review;
A. Denis Clift, President of the Joint Military Intelligence College (JMIC),
Washington, D.C.; Reva Basch, author of Secrets of the Super Net Searchers;
10
Director of Central Intelligence, Director of Central Intelligence Directive
2/12 (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1 March 1994). Hereafter cited as DCID 2/12.
11
Basch, 110.
10
and Allison Cooke, author of Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on
the Internet. These authors are all in a position to influence information
analysts, either inside or outside of government, and represent a range of
opinions on the proper use of open source information.
All these points of view agree that there is more data available now
than an analyst can manage unaided. Their approach is what differs. Steele
and Bowen would expand the Intelligence Community, which is not going to
happen without a long, and gradual culture change. Clift sees a need for
better automated tools for data retrieval, including an on-line index of open
sources .12 Cooke and Basch offer solutions for today: evaluate sources based
on criteria similar to those used for traditional print media. This thesis will
demonstrate that the ideas of each of these authors combined with the
recommend evaluation criteria in this thesis, represent a practical solution to
the information fog of the Web.
Robert David Steele, Open Source Solutions, Inc.
Steele is the most vocal advocate for expanded use of OSINF to
support the other intelligence disciplines, and recommends expanding the
Intelligence Community to include business people and academics, who have
unique knowledge and access. Steele would have analysts consult open
sources first, including subject experts in industry and academia, and then
classified sources. He is President of Open Source Solutions Inc. His
company is in the private open source intelligence (OSINT) business, and he
12
A. Denis Clift, Clift Notes: Intelligence and the Nation’s Security
(Washington, D.C.: Joint Military Intelligence College, 1999), 51-57.
11
has proposed his own plan for intelligence in the 21st Century, called
Intelligence and Counterintelligence: Proposed Program for the 21st
Century.13 Steele sees a great need to expand the access that analysts have
to OSINF.14 His view of the future Intelligence Community (IC) includes
several new groups, including scholars and business people, which constitute
the Virtual IC.15 It is these sources that Steele sees as the gold mine of
information. However, he does acknowledge that the Internet will greatly
expand access to OSINF, primarily secondary sources, which are derived from
an original source. He also suggests that OSINF may be used as a source of
“tip-offs” to serious issues that warrant classified collection.16 However, his
stand that classified intelligence is only useful in the context of what is
already known from open sources borders on accepted practice.
Dr. Wyn Bowen, Open-source Intelligence.
Bowen is an academic concerned about information overload, and
would add non-government subject-matter experts to the intelligence
collection process, as Steele suggests. Bowen thinks that subject-matter
experts should be the people to evaluate Web sites, which is unique in this
literature review. However, he sees open sources as an adjunct to classified
sources, not the source of first resort as Steele suggests. Bowen, who is a
13
Robert D. Steele, Intelligence and Counterintelligence: Proposed Program
for the 21st Century, URL: <http://www.oss.net/OSS21>, accessed 5 January 2000.
Cited hereafter as Steele, Intelligence.
14
Steele, Intelligence, under “Introduction.”
15
Steele, Intelligence, under “Part III” Figure 18.
16
Steele, Intelligence, under “Part III.”
12
professor at Kings College, London, and writes for Jane’s Intelligence Review,
demonstrates the invaluable resources available through open sources in his
article Open-source Intelligence: A Valuable National Security Resource.17 He
uses weapons proliferation as a demonstration case. This case is very
effective because it reduces the issue to tangible products of intelligence
value found in the public domain. Bowen thinks that the role of OSINF is to
provide the context of classified information.18 He also dwells on the issue of
information overload, which concerns Clift. However, he would add non-
government subject-matter experts to the collection process, as Steele also
suggests. Bowen thinks the experts’ role should be to identify the useful
sources to keep and collect, (not specific data) and the worthless sources to
ignore. In his view, experts would also serve to evaluate sources for
inaccuracy, bias, irrelevance and disinformation, which non-experts would
find difficult to do.19
17
Dr. Wyn Bowen, “Intelligence: A Valuable National Security Resource,”
Jane’s Intelligence Review, 1 November 1999, Dow Jones Interactive, “Publications
Library,” “All Publications,” Search Terms “Open Source Intelligence,” URL: <
http://djinteractive.com>, accessed on 4 March 2000.
18
Bowen, under “Technical Sources.”
19
Bowen, under “Conclusion.”
13
A. Denis Clift, President of the Joint Military Intelligence
College
Clift is also concerned about information overload, and sees a need for
better automated selection tools to solve the analysts’ selection problems.
Clift is President of the Joint Military Intelligence College (JMIC) in Washington,
D.C. His views are his own and do not represent that of the U.S.
Government; however, as President of the JMIC, Clift is in a position to
influence the opinions of analysts graduating and going on to work in
intelligence. He also served as Editor for the United States Naval Institute
Proceedings, early in his career, from 1963 to 1966.
In Chapter five of Clift Notes: Intelligence and the Nation’s Security,
Clift gives a short explanation of the open source programs available today to
support the intelligence analyst.20 He defends the Intelligence Community’s
record on making open source information (OSINF) available to intelligence
analysts. He gives an overview of the OSINF programs available to the
analysts, but does not indicate how accessible the information is. I observed
lines of analysts waiting to use Internet terminals in the JMIC library in 1999
and 2000. This is an example of why it should be clear to the Intelligence
Community (IC) that OSINF will only be used to its highest potential when it is
on the analyst’s desk. The work lost walking to a terminal down the hall or in
the next building is not worth the effort to analysts unfamiliar with the
sources, or inundated with other sources at their finger tips. Clift writes that
OSINF plays an important role in intelligence, and states that the IC already
has a good collection of OSINF in Central Information Reference and Control
20
Clift, 51-57.
14
(CIRC) of the National Air Intelligence Center and the Defense Scientific and
Technical Intelligence Centers.21 He notes the serious difficulties analysts
have within formation overload and the need for better-automated selection
tools.22 However, the technology Clift wants is not yet intelligent enough to
discern credible sources from non-credible sources. As will be demonstrated
in the findings chapter, determination of credibility requires research, and
corroboration, and has a measure of subjectivity.
Reva Basch’s Secrets of the Super Net Searchers
Basch does not address the Intelligence Community, but does address
the issue of how to select trustworthy Web sites. Basch, as well as Cooke,
takes the most practical approach to finding credible information in the flood
of electronic data. Both recommend using evaluation criteria similar to that
used for print media, with some variations.
Basch published Secrets of the Super Net Searchers in 1996, after
interviewing 35 of the best Internet searchers. In 1996, she was the news
editor for ONLINE, DATABASE, and ONLINE USER magazines and had been an
online researcher for about 21 years. Since then, she has published a series
of Super Searchers books. For Secrets of the Super Net Searchers she
conducted informal interviews with expert researchers, each of which
represents a chapter in Super Searchers. Her questions covered many issues
21
Clift, 54.
22
Clift, 56.
15
affecting online researchers and included the following, which relate to Web
23
site credibility:
• What is the quality and reliability of information on the Web?
• Are some types of sites more reliable than others?
• How are biased sources treated?
• How are the quality and reliability of unfamiliar Web sites judged?
• Is there a relationship between credibility and longevity?
Many of the experts Basch interviewed had something useful to say
about source credibility, which were consolidated into several survey
questions for this thesis.
There is disagreement whether information from personal Web sites is
credible. Susan Feldman stated in Super Net Searchers that a “Web site
written by “Joe Schmo” might be way ahead of McGraw-Hill. So you’re left to
your own devices to analyze and evaluate.”24 However, Mary Ellen Bates, also
interviewed by Basch for Super Net Searchers, stated at a WebSearch
conference in Virginia on 10 May 2001 that she does not rely on personal
Web sites unless they are well known.25
Alison Cooke, Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on

the Internet
Cooke also does not address the Intelligence Community, but does
address the issue of how to select trustworthy Web sites. Cooke also
23
Basch, 3.
24
Basch, 31.
25
Mary Ellen Bates, Presentation to WebSearch University Conference in
Reston, VA, 10 September 2001.
16
recommends using evaluation criteria similar to that used for print media,
with some variations.
Alison Cooke, who is a professional Internet searcher, wrote in 1999
the Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on the Internet. The
author’s implicit thesis is that although there is much useless, outdated, and
difficult to authenticate information on the Internet, high quality information
can be found and the quality can be assessed.26 Like Clift and Bowen, Cooke
sees information overload as a serious challenge facing researchers, but
believes accuracy is of most concern to researchers. Her solution is to
carefully evaluate Web sites using criteria similar to criteria used to evaluate
print media.
EVERY MAN’S PRINTING PRESS
There are widely accepted criteria for evaluating traditional print
media. These criteria include the reputation of the publisher and author,
peer-review of scientific articles, and editorial review of periodicals.27 Such
criteria work well when the number of publishers in a particular field are
quantifiable and their past work can be located and reviewed. However,
desktop publishing programs, personal computers, and the Web have
enabled hundreds of thousands of people to produce professional-looking
articles and distribute them to millions of potential readers without the
26
Alison Cooke, Authoritative.
27
Jan Alexander and Marsha Tate, “The Web as a Research Tool: Evaluation
Techniques,” Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University, Chester, PA, URL:
<http://www.science.widener.edu/~withers.evalout.htm,> accessed 13 March 2001.
17
benefit of peer or editorial review, or regard for brand name reputation.
Among the millions of Web pages available to the public today are many of
potential intelligence value produced by proud inventors, boisterous
government agencies, self-promoting corporations, community-minded
colleges, naïve public servants, happy vacationers, and zealous
revolutionaries. The issue at hand today is how to identify credible
information among the millions of personal, organizational, industry,
academic, and government sources. There are as many opinions on this
topic as there are open source researchers and intelligence analysts.
INFORMATION GAPS
Even after a Web site is evaluated based on the criteria presented in
Basch, Cooke or Alexander, the issue of credibility still remains. How does a
subject-matter novice know which sources he can believe? The other issue is
that of relativity. Is a Web site that is credible enough for a high school term
paper also credible enough for a basic intelligence report, or for an
intelligence warning report. This study answers both of these questions.
18
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter on methodology and the following chapter on findings are
organized by key issues and research questions. The key issues are
obstacles that must be overcome before the research question can be
answered. The key issues include: how is open source information relevant
to intelligence; do analysts know of existing official credibility criteria; are
analysts biased toward popular source titles; are foreign sites in English less
credible; and how does the credibility of classified sources compare to
unclassified sources? To answer the research question of, how to identify
credible sources on the Web, it was necessary to separate the question into
two parts. The first part of the research question was what criteria can be
use to identify credible Web sites. The second part of the research question
was how credible should any intelligence source be. The methodology relies
on logic, and statistics, and is somewhat complex due to the many steps
necessary to arrive at useful criteria, which is accurately weighted. The
methodology begins with the development of the thesis survey.
KEY ISSUE: OSINF RELEVANCE TO INTELLIGENCE
Even before the survey could be developed, the basic question needed
to be answered: why is open source information relevant to intelligence? The
19
literature review provided several views on the role of open sources in
intelligence. The opinions of Steele and Clift offered convincing reasons that
intelligence must include open source information. The reasons for using
OSINF in intelligence products are included in the findings chapter.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
Although the primary research question was, how to identify credible
sources on the Web, this thesis needed to answer several key issues
regarding source credibility on the way to answering the primary research
question. Two research methods were used to answer the key issues and
research question. First, published literature was reviewed from Intelink,
online DIA course material, Lexis-Nexus, Dow Jones Interactive, the NSA
Library, and academic Web pages. This literature review uncovered some
answers to the key issues and provided the majority of the concepts tested
by the thesis survey.
Once the thesis survey was developed, it was given to a test
population of 15 intelligence analysts for a validity check. The 15 analysts
completed the survey, and suggested adding questions, clarifying ambiguous
wording, and questioned the relevance of some questions. Those changes
were made and the second draft was given to Professor Jerry P. Miller,
Director of the Competitive Intelligence Center at Simmons College in Boston.
Miller offered numerous suggestions that improved the reliability of the
survey. He identified government “lingo” that would not likely be
understood in industry and academia, and recommended changes to the
20
survey questions to maintain Likert-type scales for the responses. Likert
scales are a recognized method in social sciences to format survey response
options that are understood by most populations and can be used to measure
evenly a population’s opinions.
The second draft was also sent to LTC (ret) Karl Prinslow, project
manager and operations officer of a virtual organization that employs over
150 military reservists who work via telecommuting to collect and acquire
open source information in support of the Intelligence Community's
requirements. Prinslow suggested several format changes that insured all
recipients were able to display the survey on their computers, and would be
comfortable replying with anonymity. Prinslow and Miller suggested adding
the personal information disclosure statement. Prinslow also recommended
E-mailing the survey as an ASCII text message rather than a MS-Word
document, and simplified some questions. The text message enabled
anyone who was able to receive the E-mailed survey to respond to it without
special software.
After making the changes suggested by Miller and Prinslow, two
separate surveys were distributed by E-mail. In the coding and analysis, the
two surveys were treated as one survey, with some questions not applicable
to the whole population. The Intelligence Community (IC) Survey included
several questions at the end, which would not apply to industry or academia,
and it was distributed by internal communications. The Industry Survey
included the same questions as the IC Survey without the IC-unique
questions. The IC Survey was E-mailed to a group of about 100 IC analysts
who have an interest in open source intelligence (OSINT). The exact number
21
of IC analysts cannot be determined because it was sent to a mail-list, which
often changes. This method had the effect of randomizing the population
selection. One of these 100 analysts E-mailed the survey to 18 other IC
analysts. Four of these 18 E-mailed the survey to 238 others, for a total of
356 IC analysts. This chain of events was evident from the E-mail headings
and some respondents informed the author who forwarded the survey to
them. About 50 participants from a Society for Competitive Intelligence
Professional (SCIP) conference were then contacted by telephone and agreed
to participate in the E-mail Industry Survey. The Industry Survey was then E-
mailed to those 50 and 9 Defense Department analysts. One of the 9
Defense analysts E-mailed the survey to about 120 other defense analysts. A
total of about 179 analysts are known to have received the Industry Survey.
Together, the two surveys reached about 535 analysts who have an interest
in Internet research. With 66 responses, this equates to a 12.3 percent
response rate from a randomly selected population.28
RESEARCH QUESTION AND SURVEY STRUCTURE
The survey was structured to answer several key issues and the
research question: how to identify credible sources on the Web. The
hypothesis was that credible Web sites can be confidently identified by
evaluating the Web sites based on criteria recommended by professional Web
searchers and agreed to by intelligence analysts. The thesis survey asked
this question directly in survey question 6, and indirectly in survey questions
28
Appendices B and C include a copy of the E-mailed surveys.
22
8a through 8r. Question 8 listed the criteria most often mentioned by
published experts. Here is how the survey asked these questions.29
6. List up to five criteria that you use to determine the credibility of

any information source.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
8. How much credibility does each of the following factors add to the
total credibility of a Web site? Use the following scale:
___6) 100 percent Credibility

a. Recommended by a subject-matter expert.

b. Recommended by a generalist.
c. Listed by an Internet subject guide that evaluates Web sites.
d. Listed in a search engine such as Alta Vista.
e. Listed in a Web-directory organized by people, such as yahoo.
f. Content is perceived current.
g. Content is perceived accurate.
h. A peer or editor reviewed the content.
i. Content's bias is obvious.
j. Author is reputable.
k. Author is associated with a reputable organization.
l. Publisher, or Web-host is reputable.
m. Content can be corroborated with other sources.
n. Other Web sites link to or give credit to the evaluated site.
o. The server or Internet domain is a recognized copyrighted or
trademark name such as IBM.com ,
p. There is a statement of attribution.
q. Professional appearance of the Web site.
r. Professional writing style of the Web site.
To avoid influencing the responses to survey question 6, analysts were
first asked to list the criteria they currently use; they were later asked to
29
Survey, questions 6 and 8.
23
evaluate the list of criteria in questions 8a through 8r. If the survey
population had been asked about specific criteria (question 8) before being
asked what criteria they actually use (question 6), they may have been
influenced to include the listed criteria from question 8 as criteria that they
use. This arrangement was necessary because earlier discussions with
analysts revealed that there were criteria that analysts would use only after
they were told of them. Discussions with analysts prior to the survey
development had also revealed that many analyst do not know how they
determine what is a credible source, and that many analysts may only
evaluate the data, and not the source.
As is shown in the findings chapter, many analysts were confused
about the difference between data validity and source credibility. The
categorized results of question 6 were then compared to the specific criteria
analysts approved of in question 8.
RESEARCH QUESTION: CREDIBILITY CRITERIA
The results of questions 6, and 8a through 8r were used to develop the
recommended credibility criteria and credibility scale in the findings chapter.
The recommended criteria were determined by computing the mode (score
most-often chosen) for each criterion in survey questions 8a through 8r, and
to avoid influencing the responses to survey question 6. An unusual amount
of variance would indicate little agreement among the analysts. Only criteria
from question 8 that scored a mode of 50-percent credibility or greater were
included in the recommended criteria list. This means analysts most often
24
believe (mode) that the satisfaction of any one of these recommended
criteria made the source at least 50-percent credible.
Then the arithmetic mean (average) credibility was calculated for each
recommended criterion from question 8 and became that criterion’s relative
value. The relative value is how much more important, on average, analysts
think one criterion is than another criterion. The assumption here is that
such attributes are cumulative, and the more recommended criteria a site
satisfies, the more credible is the site.
The results of question 6 were categorized into a list of criteria that
analysts think they use to evaluate source credibility. The frequencies of
these criteria were calculated, and those criteria that were suggested by 50
percent of the analysts were added to the recommended criteria list.
Because the recommended criteria from question 6 were not evaluated on a
scale in the survey, they were arbitrarily assigned the average relative value
of those recommended criteria from question 8. This allowed the inclusion of
any criteria not included in question 8, but also did not significantly affect the
relative values of those criteria.
The following is a summary of the selection process for the
recommended criteria, and relative value calculation:
Step 1. Calculated the mode (most-often chosen) credibility (0-100

percent) of each criterion from survey question 8.
Step 2. Listed as recommended the criteria from question 8 that had a

mode credibility of 50 percent or greater.
Step 3. Calculated the mean credibility (average analyst chosen score)

for each recommended criteria from question 8.
25
Step 4. From question 6, added to the list of recommended criteria,
those criteria not already on the recommended list, and that had a mean
occurrence of 50 percent or greater (at least half the analysts listed the
criteria).
Step 5. Calculated the mean credibility of all the recommended criteria

from question 8, and assign that average credibility to each of the additional
recommended criteria from question 6.
Step 6. List all the recommended criteria and their individual mean
credibility as their relative values. 30
The criteria’s relative value can then be used to evaluate a Web site.
When evaluating a Web site for credibility, the relative values can be
summed for the criteria that the evaluated site satisfies. The site credibility
score can be compared to other known credible sites listed latter in this
chapter as benchmark Web sites.31
RESEARCH QUESTION: CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO USE
Even after an analyst has calculated the credibility score of a Web site,
he must know how credible a source must be to justifiably include it in an
intelligence report. Therefore, survey question 9a, b, c, d, e, and f. asked:32
9. How credible must an intelligence source be to use its data in the following
intelligence products? Use includes when you would use qualifiers such as
"possible survived". Choose the required level of credibility for each type of
intelligence.
30
See Table 1 in the findings chapter for the list of recommended criteria and
their relative values.
31
See Appendix A for the benchmarked Web site evaluation worksheets.
32
Survey, questions 9a – 9f.
26
Scale:
___7) No Opinion
___6) 100 percent Credible
Analyst were the asked to choose the required level of credibility for:
9a. Research, or topic summaries.

9b. Current, day-to-day developments.
9c. Estimative, identifies trends or forecasts opportunities or threats.
9d. Operational, tailored, focused to support an activity.
9e. Scientific, and technical, in-depth, focused assessments.
9f. Warning, an alert to take action.
The mode response for each of these types of intelligence products
was calculated and is the product-credibility levels, which are shown in Table
2 in the findings chapter. The product-credibility levels percentages were
converted into a score so that analysts can simple add the results of an
evaluation and compare the sum to the table of product-credibility levels.
The product-credibility level is also the credibility level that is needed
for sources that analysts use for a particular intelligence product. When a
potential Web site is evaluated, the analyst calculates the credibility score of
the evaluated site, and then compares it to the table of product-credibility
levels in Table 2. The sum of the evaluated Web site should be at least equal
to the product-credibility level of that type of intelligence product shown in
the table. The source-credibility level of each intelligence product type was
determined by calculating the percentage of a benchmarked very credible
Web site’s score which would equal the product-credibility level that was
recommended by the surveyed analysts.. For example, here is a theoretical
27
Web site evaluation, which also demonstrates how the product-credibility
level was determined.
Example:
Benchmark site credibility score = 46.75 points (100 percent Credible)

Product-credibility level of intelligence product: 35.06 (75 percent of
46.75).
Theoretical results of a Web site evaluation:
Meets Criteria 1 = 5 points

Meets Criteria 5 = 3.5 points
Meets Criteria 7= 4.5 points
Meets Criteria 12 = 3.5
Sum of Evaluated Site = 38 points

Result: Exceeds the product-credibility level of 35.06
This summarizes the process recommended in this thesis to evaluate
the credibility of a Web site. This process is based on the theory that the
criteria recommended by expert Web searchers and approved by most
analysts are the best criteria for evaluating Web sites. The weight or relative
value of each criterion is based on the average score given the criterion by
analysts. The final evaluation is based on a comparison of the total values of
the evaluated site to the total values of the benchmark sites.
28
KEY ISSUE: OFFICIAL CREDIBILITY CRITERIA
It also seemed important to know what the Intelligence Community’s
official criteria are for evaluating the credibility of sources. However, after
failing to identify such a policy, it became more relevant to know if analysts
were aware of such a policy. It reasoned that if analysts were not aware of
such a policy, its existence was irrelevant. The survey results of this question
would determine if consistent credibility criteria are used in the Intelligence
Community. The lack of such criteria may call into question the consistency
of intelligence reporting. Therefore, question 5 asked:33
5. Does your organization have official criteria that you are told to use
for determining the credibility of any source? "Any source" means published,
proprietary, and classified sources. Choose all that apply:
___a. Yes, I know the official criteria for evaluating

UNCLASSIFIED information sources.
___b. No, I don't know of official criteria for evaluating
___c.. No, I don't know the official criteria for evaluating
___d. Yes, I know the official criteria for evaluating CLASSIFIED

information sources.
___e. No, I don't know of official criteria for evaluating
CLASSIFIED information sources.
___f.. No, I don't know the official criteria for evaluating
CLASSIFIED information sources.
KEY ISSUE: ANALYST’S OBJECTIVITY AND WELL KNOWN TITLES
33
Survey, question 5.
29
Discussions with analysts and the literature review indicated that well-
known publication titles are perceived as more credible than obscure titles,
even though the analysts may have never seen the well-known titles.
Therefore, to determine how objective analysts are, question 7a through 7m
asked analysts to evaluate the credibility of 13 sources based only on their
titles. This key issue was answered by comparing the well-known titles in
survey questions 7a, b, c, j, k, l, and m, with obscure titles in survey
questions 7d, e, f, g, h, and i. Question 7 asked:34
7. How credible are the following information sources given only their
titles? Choose one from the following scale:
___7) = Certainly True

___6) = Strongly Credible
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
___3) = Non-credible
___2) = Strongly Non-credible
___1) = Certainly False
Well-known Titles:
a. NY Times
b. Washington Post
c. Harvard.edu Web site
j. NationalGeographic.com Web site
k. JanesDefenseWeekly.com Web site
l. InformationWeek.com Web site
m. DowJonesInteractive.com Web site
Obscure Titles:
d. RussianArmy.ru, Web site in Russian
e. RussianArmy.ru Web site in English
f. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in Hebrew
g. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in English
h. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in French
i. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in English
34
Survey, questions 7a – 7l..
30
However, there was a problem with how this question was structured
and the findings may not be valid. Judging from the comments in the
surveys, it was evident that analysts were not able to make credibility
judgments for many sources based on titles alone either because they had
personal experience with the sources, which influenced their judgments, or
because they were unwilling to make an uninformed judgment based on titles
alone.35
KEY ISSUE: FOREIGN LANGUAGE SOURCES
An issue related to source titles was, do analysts perceive foreign
sources published in their native language to be more credible than the
English language version of the same publications? This question was
answered by comparing survey questions 7d to 7e, and comparing 7f to 7g,
and comparing 7h to 7i. The validity of these questions was preserved by not
including any real publications or Web site titles, which the analysts may be
familiar with.36

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
d. RussianArmy.ru, Web site in Russian
35
Survey, questions 7a – 7l.
36
Survey, questions 7d – 7i.
31
e. RussianArmy.ru Web site in English
f. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in Hebrew

g. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in English
h. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in French

i. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in English
KEY ISSUE: CLASSIFIED VS. UNCLASSIFIED SOURCES
Discussions with IC managers and consultants often included
statements such as, how do classified sources compare in credibility to
unclassified sources and less often, how do classified sources compare to one
another. This is a comparison that is likely to change over time. One JMIC
professor explained that different intelligence sources seem to go in and out
of favor as access success improves for one source or another. These issues
were only included in the IC Survey and most analysts answered as though
they had an opinion. Therefore, questions 7n, o, p, q, r, and, s. asked:37

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
The intelligence sources in question included:
7n. HUMINT sources with no reporting record

7o. HUMINT sources with a proven reporting record
7p. IMINT, with National analysts annotations or comments
7q. IMINT, without National analysts annotations or comments
37
Survey, questions 7n – 7s.
32
7r. SIGINT reporting
7s. MASINT
Analysis of these questions included a calculation of the mode and
range for all sources included in question 7, and compared them to each
other. This provides an interesting comparison of classified and unclassified

38
sources.
ETHICS
The thesis survey relied on the truthful response from analysts
currently working in areas included in this survey. Such responses could be
critical of an analyst’s employer or profession; therefore, the thesis included
the following statement intended to protect the respondent’s anonymity.
PRIVACY:
You do not need to include your name; however, if you choose to
include your name, it will only be used by me to contact you if I need
more information regarding your comments. I will not quote you
directly unless you indicate in Questions 3 and 4 that I may do so.
Otherwise, only me and my Thesis Chairman, Professor Alex Cummins
… will have access to respondent names. Any record of the names in
association with the responses will be destroyed after the research is
completed, except those names included in the thesis with
permission.39
38
See Table 7, and Table 8 in the findings chapter.
39
Survey, Privacy.
33
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter first describes what was discovered in the literature
review that could answer the research question and the key issues. Then the
results of the survey are described , followed by how these results answered
the research question and the key issues. The survey determined what
criteria analyst use today to judge the credibility of an intelligence source,
which can be found in Appendix D. Even after consolidation, 148 separate
criteria were suggested by analysts, indicating little consistency in criteria, or
little understanding of the differences between data validity and source
credibility. Many of the suggested criteria appear to be measures of valid
data, or lists of known credible sources.40
The most significant result of the survey is the list of recommended
credibility criteria determined by surveying analysts’ opinions of criteria
suggested by experts in the literature review. Only two expert
recommendations were rejected by the surveyed analysts. The survey also
showed that analysts see only a small difference in the credibility of open
sources and classified sources.41 42
40
Survey, question 6.
41
Survey, questions 7a through 7s.
42
See Table 8 in findings chapter for comparison of classified and
unclassified source credibility.
34
Just as useful as the credibility criteria is the credibility scale
developed by benchmarking known credible and known non-credible Web
sites. The benchmarked sites determined the expected score of a credible
Web site. The survey results also determined a target level of credibility for
intelligence sources, which was converted to a percent of the credible
benchmark score on the credibility scale. The benchmarking of known
credible and non-credible Web sites validated the criteria and demonstrated
that credible sources can be identified on the Web.43
KEY ISSUE: OSINF RELEVANCE TO INTELLIGENCE
Although all experts agree that open source information (OSINF)
contributes to intelligence, how OSINF should contribute is still an open
debate. Steele suggests that analysts should reference OSINF first, and then
classified sources, and presumably only then request further classified
collection to fill the intelligence gaps.44 This approach would acquire data
from the least expensive sources first. Steele calls for 5 percent of the
intelligence budget to be moved to support OSINF acquisition.45 He claims
this would increase timely intelligence by a magnitude. His comments
suggest an answer to the key issue how relevant is OSINF to intelligence.
Open sources include what is already publicly known about a subject, and
therefore should represent the background and context of any intelligence

43
See Appendix A, Benchmarked Web Site Evaluation Worksheet.
44
Steele, under “Part III.”
45
Steele, under “Part III.”
35
report, and should be considered before any classified collection is
attempted. Not to do so would potentially waste funds and possibly put
people at risk for information that may have been found in a foreign Web
site, foreign newspaper, or company brochure. These open sources can also
be used to corroborate classified intelligence, thus contributing to the
credibility of a classified source. Because classified resources are so much
more expensive than open sources, open sources should always be the first
choice, followed by classified sources if not available through open sources,
or if the open sources credibility cannot be determined or is determined to be
too low. Therefore, OSINF affects the cost of intelligence, the timely access
to information, the context of intelligence, the credibility of intelligence, as
well as the content.
Bowen’s recommendations to include subject-matter experts in the
intelligence collection cycle may be a practical way to implement the
evaluation process proposed by this thesis.46 Implemented community wide,
Bowen’s cadre of OS subject experts could produce a significant savings in
time and money spent by countless analysts’ attempting to sort the useful
credible information from the useless and non-credible information. I have
observed that every analyst who makes use of Web sites for open source
intelligence must rediscover which sites are useful and credible, even though
an expert at another agency or just down the hall may have already
evaluated the site. Also, when a Web site is recommended by one analyst to
another analyst, there is no consistent way to evaluate the Web site and
express that evaluation to other analysts. This research produced a
46
Bowen, under “Collection Strategy.”
36
methodology to evaluate Web sites and consistently communicate that
evaluation to other analysts.
RESEARCH QUESTION: HOW TO IDENTIFY CREDIBLE WEB SITES
Reva Basch’s Secrets of the Super Net Searchers is an essential source
of expert credibility criteria for Web sites, which were incorporated into the
thesis survey.47 The following recommendations from expert Web searchers
are comprehensive. Bob Bethune, a research consultant in Ann Arbor, told
Basch that one should evaluate Net sources the same as one would print
material.48 Bob Bethune explained that those tests include:
“Is this source of information direct or derivative?

Is it biased, and if so, in what way?
Can the claims made here be corroborated by independent
evidence?”49
• Bethune believes that every source is biased, and the better
sources do not hide the bias.50 Throughout Super Searchers
many of the researchers’ comments overlapped, indicating a
general agreement about some evaluation criteria. All of the
expert comments regarding credibility were consolidated and
reformatted into balanced questions for the thesis survey.
These comments included the following, which can be attributed
to one or more professional researchers:
47
Survey, questions 8a – 8r.
48
Basch, 9.
49
Basch, 9.
50
Basch, 9.
37
• Bias. The researcher must understand the source’s bias.51
• Objectivity. Are the author’s statements supported with reasoning

52
or facts? Even a bias author can compensate for his bias by including
competing reasoning and facts.
• Accuracy. Online sources are generally quicker than print media at
correcting errors.53 Even print sources include inaccurate information or
disinformation.54 I believe that this is significant because accuracy affects
credibility; therefore, Web sources should be more accurate and timely
than print media because the technology enables quicker revisions.
• Expert opinion.
• Rely on second party expert evaluation whenever possible, e.g.,
recommendations from professional associations, academic organizations,
subject experts.55
• Informal networks of colleagues with different areas of expertise
inform one another of credible sources.56
• Use second opinions to evaluate the accuracy of an author, which
can be done by posting related questions to appropriate news groups.57
51
Basch, 9, 15.
52
Basch, 31.
53
Basch, 48.
54
Basch, 9.
55
Basch, 31.
56
Basch, 31.
57
Basch, 31.
38
• Subject area Web pages created by subject librarians are a good
source of links to evaluated Web sites.58 I recommend evaluation sites
that explain their evaluation process.
• Gray literature (documents with limited distribution such as
company brochures, or equipment manuals), best located on the Web, is
often published by very credible sources, including governments, and
corporations, which can be good sources for factual data. Interpretation
of the data may require an expert.59 I suggest asking a subject-matter
expert to distinguish facts from advertising in corporate literature.
• Origin.
• How close is the source to the origin of the data? 60
• Discover the original source to avoid circular and false
corroboration.61
• Corroboration. Can the information be corroborated?62
Corroboration is only effective if it is from diverse sources. This is another
reason it is important to know the origin of the data.
• Current. Is the information current? 63
58
Basch, 139.
59
Basch, 40, 110.
60
Basch, 9.
61
Basch, 16.
62
Basch, 9, 96.
63
Basch, 132.
39
• Format. Is the source professionally formatted, indicating attention
to detail?64 Web publishing software has made professional formatting so
much easier than print publishing once was. For this reason, I would not
give Web site format the same weight as print media format.
• Association.
• What are the author’s affiliations, e.g., academic, industry, or
government?65 Although I think industry is often the best source for some
types of data, including scientific, industry is often biased toward their
own products or chosen technology.
• Commercial publications gain credibility if they are included in
Lexis-Nexis or Dialog.66 These are two information brokers who have a
reputation to protect by assuring that they are only associated with
credible sources.
• Reputation.
• What is the reputation of the author and publisher?67
• Web sites in the .gov domain are generally credible, as are
academic Web sites. However, Web site evaluators need to verify that an
academic Web page represents the institution and not just a student.68
64
Basch, 132.
65
Basch, 31.
66
Basch, 49.
67
Basch, 31.
68
Basch, 132, 224.
40
• Know which publishers, universities, or companies are well
respected in your topic area.69 These are likely to be credible sources, or
able to identify credible sources.
• Reputable publishers, well-known authors, and (peer) reviewed
publications are more credible than other sources.70
• Attribution.
• Does the source clearly identify its self and its purpose? 71
• Indications of the source include the text of the Web site, the name
of the Web server in the URL, and the directory name in the URL, which
may include the author’s name.72
• Attribution should include the institution and a person,
withinformation on how to contact the author.73
• I would also recommend viewing the Web site’s HTML source code
for revision dates, and statements of attribution not shown in the Web
site’s body.
• Motivation.
• Information has value; therefore, know why a source provides
information for free.74
69
Basch, 110, 137.
70
Basch, 32.
71
Basch, 16.
72
Basch, 140.
73
Basch, 140.
74
Basch, 77.
41
• The presence of a counter on a Web site indicates the author cares
that people know that other people like his site enough to visit it.75
However, I am aware that counters have also been used to falsely
indicate that a site is popular when it is not. Therefore, counters are
probable not a reliable indicator of anything. A more relevant indicator of
popularity is how many and which other Web sites include links to the
evaluated site. I suggest using Alta-Vista’s Link: command in the
Advanced Search area to determine this. A search of relative news groups
will also indicate what other people think of a Web site.
• Relativity. What is a good source for one purpose may be
insufficient for another purpose.76 This is another reason that I think
that Web sites are best evaluated by subject-matter experts. A
novice or generalist who evaluates a Web site for someone else
should indicate his own level of knowledge in the topic area. This
also relates to thesis survey question 9, which asked analysts to
evaluate how credible a source must be to use it for different
intelligence products.
All of the statements listed above from respected Internet searchers
contributed to the thesis survey question 8, which asked how much does
specific criteria contributed to the credibility of Web sites.
Alison Cooke’s Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on the
Internet included three areas: what is high quality information, how to find it,
and how to evaluate it. Each of these areas contributed to the development
75
Basch, 132.
76
Basch, 133.
42
of relevant questions in the thesis survey. On the topic of high-quality
information, Cooke explains that some of the most common problems with
the Internet include:77
• information overload
• too much useless information
• potentially inaccurate material
• outdated material
Publishing has become so easy that researchers must comb through
thousands of supposedly related Web pages returned by search tools, which
do not even include, databases, news services, and FTP sites. The citation
search engines are of no help in determining quality, or relevance. Most
search engines are only an index of Web pages found.
Cooke explains that without the filtering provided by commercial and
academic publishers, people publish because they can, not because they
have something useful to share.78 I have observed that this is a serious
problem because it camouflages the useful information and requires a great
amount of time to sort through. A useless site can have all the gloss, format,
and authoritative “lingo” of a useful site, yet have no useful content.
Cooke contends that accuracy is perhaps of most concern to
researchers and professionals. As an example of the accuracy issue, Cooke
explains that of forty WWW medical sites evaluated, only four included the
advice close to the authoritative published recommendations.79 I believe that
this level of inaccuracy is possible because Web authors are their own editor
77
Cooke, 89.
78
Cooke, 12.
79
Cooke, 62.
43
and publisher, allowing no opportunity for critical review which most scholars
and professionals welcome.
Methods for finding data on the Web are unique to the Web and online
sources. Cooke explains in great detail the advantages and disadvantages
of:
• search engines
• review and rating services
• subject catalogs and directories
• subject-based gateway services and virtual libraries
Cooke explains that search engines such as Excite and Lycos (or
AltaVista, which is still solvent) are comprehensive, unfocused, have poor
relevance ranking, and are not useful for finding nor evaluating sources for
quality. They are also generally limited to Web sites and index every page on
every site, further multiplying the number of results per query.80 I have
observed that some search engines such as Google have resolved this
multiple indexing of a single site by displaying only the first indexed page,
unless one requests more.
Cooke also writes that subject catalogs and directories such as Yahoo
and Galaxy are more useful because site authors write the site descriptions;
catalog experts choose the hierarchy category to place the site; and only
sites are indexed, not every page. However, these sites are still very large,
and because the indexing is done by people rather than machines, as is the
80
Cooke, Chapter 2.
44
case with search engines, Web site directories are not revisited as often and
may become outdate.81
Cooke also wrote that rating and reviewing services use different,
usually unpublished criteria for rating the best sites. These include
Encyclopaedia Britannica’s Internet Guide and Lycos Top 5 percent.82 These
are even better yet for finding high-quality sources because a person other
than the author has reviewed the site based on some criteria. However,
these criteria are targeted to a general audience, not the academic or
professional. Higher weight may be given to organization and graphics, than
for content or accuracy, and the evaluators are not subject-matter experts.83
Cooke believes that the best place to find high-quality sources is from
subject-based gateway services and virtual libraries. These facilities are
designed by librarians or subject-matter experts, and use common indexing
methods used in libraries. They are often subject-matter specific and site
descriptions are evaluated and described by subject-matter experts.84
The last section of Cooke’s book gives checklists of evaluation criteria
for several internet source types. The criteria can be used for overall
evaluation of Web sites, not specifically for credibility as this thesis does.
Cooke’s criteria are based on surveys of hundreds of internet users, and were
81
Cook, Chapter 2.
82
Cook, Chapter 2.
83
Cooke, Chapter 2.
84
Cooke, 92.
45
validated by professional librarians. The unique evaluation criteria for each
type of Web site are fully described.
The source types described in this book, with general evaluation
criteria, included:
• organizational WWW sites
• personal home pages
• subject-based WWW sites
• electronic journals and magazines
• image-based and multimedia sources
• USENET newsgroups and discussion groups
• databases
• FTP archives
• current awareness services
• FAQs
Criteria for assessing an organizational Web site should include the
authority and reputation of the institution within its field, as well as the date
the page was last updated.85 Criteria for a subject-based Web site include
the purpose of the site, comprehensiveness, and whether the page includes
pointers to other sources for more information.86 Evaluation criteria for
electronic journals and magazines include the site’s authority and reputation
as well as whether the site has been referenced by a known reputable journal
85
Cooke, 90.
86
Cooke, 97.
46
that filters its own articles for accuracy.87 These criteria were included in the
survey questions for this thesis.
SURVEY FINDINGS, CREDIBILITY CRITERIA
The primary purpose of the thesis survey was to identify criteria for
assessing the credibility of a Web site. The recommended credibility criteria
were determined by a multi-step processes. First, all credibility criteria
recommended by experts in the literature review were listed, and then
consolidated. Then the consolidated list of expert criteria were included in
the thesis survey to industry and intelligence analysts as questions 8a
through 8r. Those criteria, which analysts most often gave a credibility value
of 50 percent or higher, were then listed as recommendations. Note that
only three criteria were rejected as credible by 50 percent or more
respondents. The first two were not recommended by experts, but were
added to assess the basic knowledge of respondents and as control
questions, which were not expected to be accepted by respondents.
Rejected criteria included:
8d. Listed in a search engine such as AltaVista.

8e. Listed in a Web directory organized by people, such as Yahoo.
8r. Professional writing style of Web page
Then the mean credibility (average analyst chosen score) was
calculated for each recommended criteria from question 8. The mean then
became the relative value or weight for each criterion.
87
Cooke, 98.
47
The criteria recommended in survey question 6 were then listed, and
consolidated. The methodology planned to add to the list of recommended
criteria from question 8, those criteria from question 6 that were not already
on the recommended list, and that had a mode occurrence of 50 percent or
greater (at least half the analysts listed the criterion). Surprisingly, there
were no criteria recommended by half or more of the respondents in the
open survey question number 6. The criteria that were mentioned most
often were: corroboration (28 occurrences), bias (14 occurrences), reputation
of the source (10 occurrences), source’s authority or credentials (8
occurrences), and presentation (7 occurrences).88 However, each of these
most-often suggested criterion, except source authority, were also suggested
by published experts discussed in the literature review, and were recommend
by 50 percent or more of respondents when ask about those specific criterion
in survey questions 8a-8r. Therefore, no additional criteria were added from
question 6.
Therefore, Table 1 below includes the results of the criteria surveyed,
the relative values of each criterion, and which criteria were chosen for
recommendation.89
Table 1. Question 8a to 8r, Recommended Criteria and Relative Values (Mean).

(a)
Number of
Cases
Criteria Valid Missin Mean M Recommended
g ode
88
See Table 15. Survey Question 6: Personal Criteria Analysts Currently Use
to Determine Credibility.
89
Survey, questions 8a – 8r.
48
8a. Recommended by 66 0 4.94 5 Yes
subject-matter expert in the
topic of the Web page.
8b. Recommended by a 65 1 3.65 4 Yes
generalist.
8c. Listed by an Internet 63 3 3.56 4 Yes
subject guide that evaluates
Web sites.
8d. Listed in a search engine 64 2 2.39 1 No
such as AltaVista
8e. Listed in a Web directory 62 4 2.65 2 No
organized by people, such as
Yahoo.
8f. Content is perceived 64 2 3.78 5 Yes
current.
8g. Content is perceived
accurate. 63 3 4.56 5 Yes
8h. A peer or editor reviewed 65 1 4.52 5 Yes
the content.
8i. Content's bias is obvious. 65 1 3.06 4 Yes
8j. Author is reputable. 64 2 4.64 5 Yes
8k. Author is associated with 65 1 4.42 5 Yes
a reputable organization.
8l. Publisher or Web host is 65 1 4.02 5 Yes
reputable.
8m. Content can be 65 1 5.17 5 Yes
corroborated with other
sources
8n. Other Web sites link to, or 65 1 3.68 5(b) Yes
give credit to the evaluated
site
8o. Server or domain is 65 1 3.45 4 Yes
copyrighted or trademark
name, like IMB.com.
8p. Statement of attribution. 64 2 3.78 5 Yes
8q. Professional appearance 65 1 2.86 4 Yes
of Web site.
8r. Professional writing style 64 2 3.16 3 No
of Web page.
(a) (a) Table Explanatory Notes. Mode Values: 1=0 percent, 2=10 percent, 3=25
percent, 4=50 percent, 5=75 percent, 6=100 percent credible. Mode is the
most-often chosen score respondents gave each criterion. Only modes of 50
percent credible and higher are recommended. The Mean is the average score
respondents gave each criterion. The Mean is assigned to each recommended
criteria as their relative values which are latter summed when evaluating a Web
site.
(b) (b) Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
The last step of the processes to identify commonly agreed-upon
credibility criteria and to assign relative weights, involved applying the
49
recommended criteria to known credible, and known non-credible Web sites,
to establish benchmarks and a relative credibility scale. Three credible sites
known to the author or recommended by a subject expert were evaluated to
establish the high-end of the relative credibility scale. The relative values of
each criterion that the site satisfied were then summed for the site’s relative
credibility score. Then the average of the three credible Web sites was
calculated as the benchmark credible score. See Appendix A for the
evaluation worksheets, and detailed evaluation for these Web sites.
It was surprisingly easier to find known credible Web sites to evaluate
than it was to find known non-credible Web sites to evaluate. This was
because it did not seem useful to benchmark a Web site so obviously non-
credible that no analysts would consider using it, negating the need for an
evaluation at all. Due to this difficulty, only one non-credible Web site was
evaluated. Due to concerns about potential libel claims, this non-credible
Web site will be referenced here by the pseudonym “KoreanNewsSite.” The
KoreanNewsSite was selected because the author had evaluated this site for
a previous research paper and had found it non-credible, and yet a challenge
to evaluate. The challenge to evaluating it came from its mix of very credible
links, unknown contributing authors, and non-credible articles by the
publisher. The key points that made the publisher’s articles non-credible
included a general lack of authoritative citations to source documents, lack of
dates on the articles, a distinct bias camouflaged by corroborative facts, and
inaccuracies. Relative newsgroup discussions indicated that the publishing
author had a poor reputation for these same reasons.
50
The figures below represent the relative credibility scale and how these
benchmarks were determined. Based on these evaluations, a very credible
Web site should rate a relative credibility score of about 46.75, and a non-
credible site should rate a relative credibility score of about 7.46.
51
Benchmark Credible Web sites Evaluated Score
Spot Image Corporation, www.spot.com 43.19
International Telecommunications Union, www.itu.int 48.24
NY Times On the Web, nytimes.com 48.82
Average Score 46.75
Benchmark Non-credible Web site Evaluated Score

KoreanNewsSite 7.46
Relative Credibility Scale:

46.75 = Very-Credible
7.46 = Non-credible
SURVEY FINDINGS, CREDIBLE ENOUGH FOR INTELLIGENCE USE
As discussed in the methodology chapter, having a relative scale is
useful from an academic perspective; however, to be of practical use, the
analysts must also know what the target or required level of credibility is for
a source he would like to use in an intelligence product. The required level of
credibility for intelligence sources was determined by survey questions 9a –
9f, which asked:90
“How credible must an intelligence source be to use its data in the

following intelligence products?”
7) No Opinion
6) 100 percent Credible
9a. Research, or topic summaries

9b. Current, day-to-day developments
9c. Estimative, identifies trends or forecasts opportunities or threats
9d. Operational, tailored, focused to support an activity
9e. Scientific, or technical, in-depth, focused assessments
90
52
9f. Warning, an alert to take action
The following calculations were used to determine the product-
credibility level for six types of intelligence products. The mode was
calculated for survey questions 9a – 9f. The mode is the most-often chosen
required level of source credibility. The statistics indicate that most analysts
believe that all types of intelligence products require that sources be 75
percent credible.91 This was a surprise because the author expected to see a
greater variance in the required levels of source credibility, with warning
intelligence requiring the least credibility and in-depth focused assessments
requiring the greatest level of credibility. This presumption was based on the
belief that analysts require less information about an imminent threat than
they do about a future scientific or political condition, because the potential
impact of ignoring the least threat is so much greater than ignoring the most
significant emerging scientific or political condition. Apparently, most
analysts do not understand the relationship of intelligence products to
outcomes, or the survey question was flawed.
However, using the survey results, the sources of all intelligence
products should be 75 percent credible. If the most credible Web sites have a
relative-credibility score of 46.75 as demonstrated above, then intelligence
products should be 75 percent of that, which is 35.06. Therefore, the target-
credibility level of any intelligence source is 35.06, as evaluated by the
recommended credibility criteria. The following table shows the most-often
chosen (mode) required credibility level for intelligence products.
91
See Table 2.
53
Table 2. Questions 9a-f. Required Level of Source Credibility for
Intelligence Products.92
Number of Required Credibility
Cases
Valid Missing Mode Range
(b) percent percent
9a. Research, special topic 35 31 50 0-100
summaries percent(a percent
)
9b. Current, day-to-day 35 31 75 0-100
developments percent percent
8c. Estimative, identifies trends or 35 31 75 0-100
forecasts opportunities or threats percent percent
9d. Operational, tailored, focused, to 35 31 75 0-100
support a military, intelligence, or percent percent
diplomatic activity
9e. Scientific or technical, in-depth, 35 31 75 0-100
focused assessments of trends or percent percent
capabilities
9f. Warning, an alert to take action 35 31 75 0-100
percent percent
Required-credibility level for all 75
Intelligence Product Sources percent
(a) Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown. Just as many
respondents chose 75 percent.
(b) Missing responses are primarily because non Intelligence Community
personnel were not asked these questions in the survey. Mode is based on
valid responses.
SURVEY FINDINGS, OFFICIAL CREDIBILITY CRITERIA
Question 5 asked, “Does your organization have official criteria that
you are told to use for determining the credibility of any source? "Any source"
means published, proprietary, and classified sources.”93 The purpose of this
question was to determine if analysts are aware of credibility criteria that
they can use to ensure a consistent quality of reporting. The assumption

92
93
Survey, question 5.
54
here is that only criteria formally sanctioned by the organization are likely to
be consistently followed. As the table below indicates, 86.2 percent of
analysts are either not aware of official credibility criteria or do not think such
criteria exist in their organization for unclassified sources, and 70.4 percent
are unaware of criteria for classified sources.
Many analysts commented that they rely on their own or other expert
opinions to determine source credibility, and official criteria are not needed.
In many cases this may be true; however, in a large organization there are
many levels of expertise, and without criteria and standards overall reporting
takes on the credibility of the least qualified analyst. Without such criteria,
analysts cannot even intelligently discuss credibility because there is no
common vocabulary to do so. The words credibility, reliability, and validity
are used interchangeable with no consensus on the definitions. Credibility
certainly means different things to HUMINT (Human Intelligence) analysts
than it does to IMINT (Imagery Intelligence) analysts. Tables 3 and 4 below
demonstrate that the vast majority of analysts are not aware of source
credibility criteria in their organizations.
55
Table 3. Question 5. Part 1, Official Criteria for Unclassified
Sources.94
Number Percen Valid Cumulative
of Cases t Percen Percent
t
No, I don't know the 49 74.2 75.4 75.4
official criteria for
Unclassified sources
No, I don't know of 7 10.6 10.8 86.2
Unclassified sources.
Yes, I know the official 9 13.6 13.8 100.0
criteria for Unclassified.
sources
Total 65 98.5 100.0
Missing 1 1.5
Total 66 100.0
Table 4. Question 5. Part 2, Official Criteria for Classified

Sources.95
Number of Cases Percen Valid Cumulativ
t Percent e Percent
No, I don't know the 3 4.5 11.1 11.1
classified sources.
No, I don't know of 16 24.2 59.3 70.4
classified sources.
Yes, I know the official 8 12.1 29.6 100.0
criteria for classified
sources
Total 27 40.9 100.0
Missing, none 31 47.0
applicable cases
Missing, left blank 8 12.1
Total Missing 39 59.1
Total 66 100.0
94
Survey, question 5.
95
Survey, question 5.
56
SURVEY FINDINGS, OBJECTIVITY AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE SOURCES
The author suspected that well-known sources were considered more
credible than obscure sources, even if the analysts had never observed the
well-known sources. Survey question 7 was designed to answer this issue.96
However, because many analysts had first hand knowledge of many of the
well-known sources, their evaluations were biased, and could not be made on
knowledge of the titles alone. Therefore, this question of whether analysts
are biased toward well-known sources, regardless of their personal
knowledge of the sources, remains unresolved.
However, it may be useful to know that most often analysts believed
that the well-known sources are credible, on a scale of 1-to-7 that equates to
a 5, and obscure sources, which no one is likely to have personal knowledge
of, were most often rated as undecided, which is a 4 on a scale of 1-to-7.97 It
is interesting to note that many analysts, who chose undecided for both the
well-known and obscure sources, explained that they were unable to decide
because of a lack of knowledge about the sources. This is a positive
indication that analysts do not assume that a source is credible because they
have heard of it, but never seen it. No analysts rated any open source as
Certainly True, and only one source, JanesDefenseWeekly.com Web site, was
most often rated as Strongly Credible.
96
Survey, question 7.
97
See Table 5 and 6.
57
Also, there was no significant difference in the rating given to native-
language Web sites versus foreign Enlish-language Web sites.98 This was an
issue because in discussions with analysts before the survey, some analysts
said that they had observed a difference in the content of the native-
language and English-language versions of the same Web sites.99 If this is an
issue, it is apparently not one many analysts have observed.100 Question 7a-
m asked:101

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
Table 5. Questions 7a, b, c, j, k, l, m, Credibility of Well-Known

Titles.102
Number of Mean Mode Std.
Cases Deviation
Valid Missing
Q7a. Credibility of NY Times 64 2 5.218 Credible .8061
8
Q7b. Credibility of Wash 65 1 5.107 Credible .8315
Post 7
Q7c. Harvard.edu Web Site 63 3 4.761 Undecide .8560
9 d
98
Survey, questions 7d – 7i.
99
See Table 6.
100
See Table 6.
101
Survey, question 7a – 7m.
102
Survey, questions 7a , 7b, 7c, 7j, 7k, 7l, 7m.
58
Q7j. 61 5 5.114 Credible .8583
NationalGeographic.com 8
Web Site
Q7k. 64 2 5.343 Strongly .8207
JanesDefenseWeekly.com 8 Credible
Web Site
Q7l. InformationWeek.com 61 5 4.704 Credible .7152
Web Site 9
Q7m. 61 5 4.950 Credible .7622
DowJonesInteractive.com 8
Web Site
Overall Credibility 5.02 Credible
89
Table 6. Questions 7d, e, f, g, h, i, Credibility of Obscure Titles,

and Foreign Web Sites. 103
Cases Deviation
Valid Missing
Q7d. RussianArmy.ru 60 6 3.850 Undecide .7089
0 d
Q7e. RussianArmy.ru in 60 6 3.666 Undecide .9144
English 7 d
Q7f. 56 10 4.071 Undecide .5345
IsraelIndependentNews.il 4 d
in Hebrew
Q7g. 59 7 4.118 Undecide .5597
IsraelIndependentNews.il 6 d
in English
Q7h. 57 9 4.140 Undecide .5154
FrenchIndependentNews. 4 d
fr Web Site in French
Q7i. 59 7 4.118 Undecide .5897
FrenchIndependentNews. 6 d
fr Web Site in English.
Overall Credibility 3.99 Undecide
42 d
SURVEY FINDINGS, CLASSIFIED VS. UNCLASSIFIED SOURCES
103
Survey, questions 7d, 7e, 7f, 7 g, 7h, 7i.
59
In any discussion of open source credibility within the Intelligence
Community the question arises, how do open source credibility compare to
classified sources. This issue affects the relevance of the research question
because if classified sources and unclassified sources have the same
credibility, then the IC should focus more on the cheaper source, which are
presumably the unclassified sources. However, the productivity of open
sources and classified sources would affect the cost of intelligence, which
may be a topic for another thesis. Survey questions 7a - 7s answered the
question of unclassified versus classified sources, although not as
conclusively as most analysts would hope. The average (mean) credibility
rating given to all classified sources was 5.0811 on a scale of 1-to-7, which
equates to credible; however, the most-often chosen (mode) rating was 4.0,
which is undecided.104 As the table below demonstrates, the mean and the
mode disagree.
Table 7. Questions 7n to 7s, Credibility of All Classified Sources.105

Scale: 1=Certainly False, 2=Strongly Non-credible, 3=Non-credible,
4=Undecided, 5=Credible, 6=Strongly Credible, 7=Certainly True.
Cases Deviation
Valid Missing
Q7n. HUMINT sources 34 32 4.0294 4.00 .7582
with no reporting
record.
Q7o. HUMINT sources 34 32 5.3235 5.00 .5349
with a proven
reporting record.
Q7p. IMINT with 34 32 5.6176 6.00 .7791
national analysts
annotations or
104
See Table 7.
105
Survey, questions 7n – 7s.
60
comments.
Q7q. IMINT without 35 31 4.9429 4.00 1.0831
national analysts
annotations or
comments.
Q7r. SIGINT reports 35 31 5.5429 5.00 .8521
Q7s. MASINT 33 33 5.0303 4.00 1.0150
Overall Credibility 5.0811 4.00
Credibl Undecide
e d
This difference between mean and mode demonstrates the limitations
of statistics to answer questions meaningfully when there is too much
variance in responses. That was the case here. Statistically, classified
sources were rated credible (5.0811) on average, compared to unclassified
sources, which were rated undecided (4.55) on average. However, the most-
often chosen rating (mode) of both classified and unclassified sources was
undecided (4.0).
Table 8. Credibility of Open Sources Compared to Classified

Sources.106
Scale: 1=Certainly False, 2=Strongly Non-credible, 3=Non-credible,
4=Undecided, 5=Credible, 6=Strongly Credible, 7=Certainly True.
Mean Mode
Overall Credibility Obscure Open Sources 3.9942 4.0 Undecided
Overall Credibility Well-Known Open 5.0289 5.0 Credible
Sources
Overall Credibility of All Open 4.55 5.0
Sources Undecided Undecided
Overall Credibility of All Classified 5.0811 5.0
Sources Credible Undecided
This unusual variance is most evident with question 7q, “IMINT
(Imagery Intelligence) without national analysts’ annotations or
106
Survey, questions 7a – 7s.
61
comments.”107 As Chart 1 below shows, there is little consensus on the
credibility of IMINT without annotations, and the chart lacks the expected bell
curve, or ski slope variance.
16
14
12
10
6
Number of Cases
2 Std. Dev = 1.08

Mean = 4.9
0 N = 35.00
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
3=Incredible, 4=Undecided, 5=Credible, 6=Strongly Credible, 7=True
Graph 1. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without Annotations.
Table 9. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without

Annotations.108
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid (7) Certainly True 3 4.5 8.6
(6) Strongly Credible 9 13.6 25.7
(5) Credible 7 10.6 20.0
(4)Undecided 15 22.7 42.9
(3) Non-credible 1 1.5 2.9
Total 35 53.0 100.0
Missin Not Applicable to 31 47.0
g Respondent
Total 66 100.0
107
Survey, question 7q.
108
Survey, question 7q.
62
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
The research question was, how to identify credible sources on the
Web. The author hypothesized that this could be done by analysts who are
not expert in the subject of the Web site, by applying criteria identified by
expert Web searchers and judged by analysts to add at least 50-percent
credibility to a Web site. This hypothesis was proven by applying the
recommended credibility criteria to 4 Web sites of known credibility. The
credible sites scored high and the one non-credible site scored very low, even
though it appeared credible to a casual observer. The scores produced by
these benchmark Web sites then functioned as the high and low ends of a
relative-credibility scale. Other evaluated Web sites’ scores will likely fall
between the high and low ends of the credibility scale. The position of the
evaluated site on the scale then puts the site’s level of credibility in context.
The criteria and scale were useful on their own, but intelligence
analysts need to know how credible is enough; therefore, the thesis survey
also asked analysts to rate how credible a source should be to allow its use in
several types of intelligence products. The result was that sources for all
types of intelligence products should be at least 75-percent credible.
Therefore, if the most credible benchmarked Web sites score an average of
46.75 on the credibility scale, 75 percent of that is 35.06. The target-
credibility level for any intelligence source used in an intelligence report is
63
then 36.06 on a linear scale of 7.46 (Non-credible) to 46.75 (Very Credible).
The fact that the known credible Web sites scored high and the known poor
site scored very low validated the recommended credibility criteria and their
relative credibility scores (weights). It is also of interest that the top four
criteria suggested by surveyed analysts (survey question 6) were also among
the criteria suggested by experts in the literature review, and scored high
enough in the survey of expert criteria (survey question 8) to be included in
the recommended criteria of this thesis. These common criteria included:
corroboration, bias, reputation of the source or author, source authority, and
presentation (or professional appearance).
A worksheet is included in Appendix A, Table 14, which includes the
criteria, weights, and scale, which any analyst may now use to evaluate Web
sites and communicate that evaluation to other analysts and consumers.
These criteria are not without a weakness. Some criteria require a modest
amount of research by the evaluator and may be biased toward the
evaluator’s level of knowledge of the subject. As Bowen suggested, experts
will still make the better evaluators.109 Therefore, all evaluators should
include their own credentials on the evaluation sheets they share to maintain
a level of credibility in the evaluation process. This evaluation process could
be implemented community-wide if an Open Source Information System
(OSIS) participating organization were to adopt it and begin a virtual index of
evaluated sites to which any OSIS user could contribute. Such an index
would soon constitute an intelligence catalog of credible Web sites. It is clear
that such a intelligence catalog would save the all-source analysts many
109
Bowen, under “Collection Strategy.”
64
hours of research, multiply the knowledge of experts, add to the credibility of
open sources in intelligence products, and reduce the need for classified
research when the data is available from an obscure but credible Web site.
These criteria may also be useful to Web research instructors when
explaining the importance of knowing one’s source.
There were also several issues that may have affected the objectivity
of the survey results and the relative importance of some criteria. These
were identified in the thesis as key issues. The key issue of open source’s
relevance to intelligence is covered above. The survey clearly showed that
70 to 86 percent of analysts were not aware of official criteria for evaluating
intelligence sources. This could have detrimental affect on the credibility of
intelligence reporting. Although the author expected to find an analyst bias
toward well-known source titles, such a bias was not evident in the survey
results. Also, analysts did not generally believe that the English-language
version of foreign Web sites were less credible than the native-language
versions. Surprisingly, open sources and classified sources scored about
equal in their level of credibility. However, there was a wider range of
opinion on the credibility of classified sources than there was on the
credibility of open sources. This could be due to a wider range of knowledge
about the classified sources, although analysts were given the opportunity to
choose no opinion, which few chose. The final conclusion of this thesis is that
any analysts can discern credible Web sites from the non-credible by using
the recommended criteria Although evaluations are best done by subject-
matter experts, any analysts can evaluate a Web site using standard criteria,
65
which were recommended by expert researchers and approved by a broad
selection of analysts.
To implement these criteria, I recommend that DIA or CIA, which are
the primary all-source intelligence agencies, establish an OSIS Web site that
will index the Web site evaluation sheets completed by subject-matter
experts throughout the Intelligence Community. If both of these agencies
agreed to the criteria included here or other criteria, the rest of the
community would likely follow. This is a simple solution to a complex
problem, which would significantly reduce the duplication of Web site
evaluations throughout the Intelligence Community, and would provide a
great number of analysts the benefit of expert recommendations.
Alternatively, this open source index could be divided by subject area, and
volunteer subject-matter experts throughout the IC could evaluate Web sites
for their subject area alone. Volunteer subject guides have already been
used on the internet by Yahoo and other online companies. However, it is not
often clear how they evaluate Web sites. This IC index of Web sites would
contain established evaluation criteria, supported by recognized experts
either managing the indexes or contributing to them.
66
APPENDIX A
WEB SITE EVALUATION WORKSHEETS
This appendix includes the relative credibility scale, benchmark Web
site evaluation worksheets, and blank evaluation worksheet.
Credible Benchmark Web site Evaluated TOTAL
Spot Image Corporation, www.spot.com 43.19

International Telecommunications Union, http://www.itu.int 48.24
NY Times On the Web, http://nytimes.com 48.82
AVERAGE SCORE 46.75
Non-credible Benchmark Web site Evaluated TOTAL

Korean Web Weekly, kimsoft.com 7.46
Relative Credibility Scale

46.75 = Very Credible
7.46 = Non-credible
67
Table 10. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, Spot.
Site Name, Address: Spot Image Corporation, http://www.spot.com
Evaluator Name , Expertise : Dax Norman, Intelligence Analyst,
Telecommunications, and Government
Criteria Comments Mean Satisfie
Score d
Criteria
?
8a. Recommended by Dr. Bowen, 4.94 YES
Recommended lecturer in War Studies at King’s
by subject- College London, article for
matter expert Jane’s Intelligence Review,
in the topic of 11/01/1999, “Open-source Intel:
the Web page. A Valuable National Security
Resource”.
8b. 3.65 NO
Recommended
by a
generalist.
8c. Listed by 3.56
an Internet
subject guide
that evaluates
Web sites.
8f. Content is 3.78 YES
perceived
current.
8g. Content is 4.56 YES
perceived
accurate.
8h. A peer or 4.52 NO
editor
reviewed the
content.
8i. Content's Biased toward accurate data. 3.06 YES
bias is obvious
8j. Author is Source rather than author is 4.64 YES
reputable. SPOT, CNES, the French space
agency and other satellite
companies.
8k. Author is Sources, rather than author are 4.42 YES
associated commercial satellite companies
with a who sell their products through
reputable the reputable organization,
organization. SPOT Imagery Corp. A search of
groups.google.com located
many favorable articles about
the company including a news
release from the newsgroups,
sci.space.news by
68
69
Table 11. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, ITU.
Site Name, Address: International Telecommunications Union,
http://www.itu.int
Criteria Comments M Satisfied
ean Criteria?
Scor
e
8a. Recommended Used by the U.S. 4.94 YES
by subject matter Government.
expert in the topic of
the Web page.
8b. Recommended 3.65 NO
by a generalist.
8c. Listed by an 3.56
Internet subject
guide that evaluates
Web sites.
perceived current.
8g. Content is 4.56 YES
perceived accurate.
8h. A peer or editor Journal editors are listed. 4.52 YES
reviewed the
content.
8i. Content's bias is If there is a bias it is 3.06 YES
obvious. toward making the
telecommunications
market look better than it
is.
8j. Author is Authors are not always 4.64 NO
reputable. given, and little
information other than
ITU press releases can be
found about them, but
sources of contributing
data is always provided,
and includes reputable
sources such as
Vodaphone Group.
8k. Author is Many authors are 4.42 YES

associated with a associated with the ITU
reputable and many contributors
organization. are associated with
reputable companies or
Ministries of Post
70
Telephone and Telegraph.
This reviewer recognizes
that analysis found in
these sources may be
more positive than
reality.
8l. Publisher or Web The on-line journal is 4.02 YES

host is reputable. published by the ITU, as
are their other
publications.
8m. Content can be Content can often be 5.17 YES

corroborated with found in foreign Ministry
other sources . of PTT press releases,
company press releases,
and print versions of ITU
reports.
8n. Other Web sites The following search 3.68 YES

link to, or give located 47 Web pages
credit t the that link to the ITU News
evaluated Web site. Journal:
link:www.itu.int/journal
AND NOT
host:www.itu.int . The
following search located
15, 138 Web pages that
link to the main Web
page: link:www.itu.int
AND NOT
host:www.itu.int .
8o. Server or domain The ITU is recognized 3.45 YES

is copyrighted or world-wide.
trademark name,
like IMB.com.®
8p. Statement of 3.78 YES
attribution.
8q. Professional 2.86 YES
appearance of Web
site.
TOTAL 48.2
4
71
Table 12. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, NY
Times.
Site Name, Address: NY Times On the Web, http://nytimes.com
ean Criteria?
Scor
e
8a. Recommended 4.94 YES
by subject-matter
expert in the topic of
the Web page.
by a generalist.
Internet subject
guide that evaluates
Web sites.
perceived current.
8g. Content is Yes, most of the time. 4.56 YES
perceived accurate. Errors are corrected
quickly online and given
fare space.
8h. A peer or editor 4.52 YES

reviewed the
content.
8i. Content's bias is 3.06 NO
obvious
8j. Author is There are many authors 4.64 YES
reputable. who are named and
generally are well
respected.
8k. Author is The NYTimes is 4.42 YES

associated with a recognized worldwide
reputable and has been called the
organization. Paper of Record for the
U.S.
8l. Publisher or Web Same as 8k. 4.02 YES

host is reputable.
8m. Content can be 5.17 YES
corroborated with
other sources .
8n. Other Web sites Yes. 256,177 other Web 3.68 YES
72
link to, or give credit pages were located that
t the evaluated Web link to this Web site.
site.
8o. Server or domain 3.45 YES
is
copyrighted or
trademark
name, like
IMB.com.®
8p. Statement of 3.78 YES
attribution.
8q. Professional 2.86 YES
appearance of Web
site.
TOTAL 48.8
2
73
Table 13. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, Korea.
Site Name, Address: KoreanNewsSite
ean Criteria?
Scor
e
8a. Recommended 4.94 NO
by subject matter
expert in the topic
of the Web page.
by a generalist.
Internet subject
guide that
evaluates
Web sites.
8f. Content is Linked articles are one to 3.78 YES
perceived current. two weeks old but are still
relevant. However,
KoreanNewsSite’s
personal articles are not
dated.
8g. Content is According to many 4.56 NO

perceived newsgroup discussions,
accurate. KoreanNewsSite’s writing
is a mix of truth and half-
truths that give it the
appearance of accuracy.110
8h. A peer or 4.52 NO

editor reviewed
the content.
8i. Content's bias The site includes many 3.06 NO
is obvious. links to very good sources,
which masks the strong
anti-American and pro-
North Korean tone which is
revealed in the author’s
writing and his selective
choice of links and
previously published
articles.
110
Googles Groups, URL: < http://groups.google.com >, accessed 26 March
2001.
74
8j. Author is A search of the Google 4.64 NO
reputable. newsgroups found many
discussion threads I the
soc.culture.Korean
newsgroup, which used
KoreanNewsSite as a
standard comparison for
poor, biased reporting. 111
8k. Author is Same as 8j. 4.42 NO

associated with a
reputable
organization.
8l. Publisher or Same as 8j. 4.02 NO
Web host is
reputable.
8m. Content can Although many of the 5.17 NO
be corroborated articles this site links to
with other include corroborative
sources . information,
KoreanNewsSite’s own
articles do not cite
authoritative sources that
can be corroborated, and
usually do not include
source data at all. A
search for corroborating
data also did not succeed.
8n. Other Web A search of Altavista.com 3.68 YES

sites link to, or using the command link:
give credit t the KoreanNewsSite AND NOT
evaluated Web host: KoreanNewsSite.com,
site. located about 5,000 other
Web pages that link to
KoreanNewsSite.com .
There is clearly demand
for KoreanNewsSite’s style
of journalism.
8o. Server or 3.45 NO

domain is
copyrighted or
trademark name,
like IMB.com.®
8p. Statement of KoreanNewsSite attributes 3.78 YES
attribution. articles to the other
111
Google Groups.
75
authors, and himself.
KoreanNewsSite includes a
page which he claims to
describes himself;
however, there is some
doubt in the newsgroups
that his biography is true
because of inconsistencies
in dates and his claimed
age.
8q. Professional The site looks home-made. 2.86 NO

appearance of
Web site.
TOTAL 7.46
76
Table 14. Blank Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet.
Site Name, Address:
Evaluator Name , Expertise :
Scale: 46.75 = Very Credible, 7.46 = Non-credible
Target Score for Intelligence Sources: 35.06
Criteria Comments Mean Satisfied
Score Criteria?
1. Recommended by 4.94
subject-matter expert in
the topic of the Web
page.
2. Recommended by a 3.65
generalist.
3. Listed by an Internet 3.56
subject guide that
evaluates Web sites.
4. Content is perceived 3.78
current.
5. Content is perceived 4.56
accurate.
6. A peer or editor 4.52
reviewed the content.
7. Content's bias is 3.06
obvious.
8. Author is reputable. 4.64
9. Author is associated 4.42
with a reputable
organization.
10. Publisher or Web host 4.02
is reputable.
11. Content can be 5.17
corroborated with other
sources.
12. Other Web sites link 3.68
to, or give credit to the
evaluated Web site.
13. Server or domain is 3.45
copyrighted or
trademark name, like
IBM.com.®
14. Statement of 3.78
attribution.
15. Professional 2.86
appearance of Web site.
TOTAL
(Copyright: Dax R. Norman, 2001. Unlimited use is allowed with this statement
included.)
77
APPENDIX B
SURVEY TO INDUSTRY AND ACADEMIA
The following text is shown in its original format, except that
“incredible” was changed to “non-credible” to maintain consistency with the
thesis.
To: Professional Researchers and Analysts

From: Dax Norman, Joint Military Intelligence College Graduate Student
Please take about 20 minutes to answer the attached multiple-choice

questions, and E-mail your answers to dnorman@carr.org by 30 July 2001.
This is best done by clicking on Reply in your E-mail tool and include this
message. Please share this survey with any other analysts or researchers
who you think may be interested.
WHY:
I am conducting research for my Masters Thesis at the Joint Military
Intelligence College. To do this I need assistance from many other analysts
who use the Web professionally to find information. I understand that your
time is valuable and I sincerely appreciate your assistance. I hope to
demonstrate through this research which criteria is most widely accepted for
measuring the credibility of Web sites. Also, your comments will help me to
categorize the survey responses, and credibility criteria used by different
industries or professions regarding Web sites used by professionals across
various industries.
PRIVACY:
You do not need to include your name; however, if you choose to include your
name, it will only be used by me to contact you if I need more information
regarding your comments. I will not quote you directly unless you indicate in
Questions 3 and 4 that I may do so. Otherwise, only me and my Thesis
Chairman, Professor Alex Cummins (410-854-4605) will have access to
respondent names. Any record of the names in association with the
responses will be destroyed after the research is completed, except those
names included in the thesis with permission.
INSTRUCTIONS:
78
Instructions for responding to this research survey are included on page 2 of
the survey. My preferred method is to type an X next to your answers and E-
mail this survey back to dnorman@carr.org. This is most easily done by
clicking on "Reply" in your E-mail tool. Please use the comments area after
each question if you feel that you need to explain an answer. However, the
"Comment" should not be used as a response choice. Please don't conduct
any research or attempt to locate the Web sites mentions here.
Respectfully,
Dax R. Norman
Joint Military Intelligence College, Cohort 10
xyz-xyz-xyz work
xyz-xyz-xyz fax
dnorman@xyz.xyz home E-mail
Thesis Chairman, Professor Alex Cummins, XYZ-XYZ-XYZX
------------------------------------------------Page 1 Below
JMIC THESIS SURVEY: CREDIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WEB SITES

Industry Analysts and Researchers Participation is Requested.
Research Conducted by
Dax R. Norman
JMIC, Cohort 10
Research conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Masters of Science in Strategic Intelligence Thesis.
2 July 2001
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and respondents,
and do not reflect the official policy or positions of the U.S. Government.
------------------------------------------------Page 2 Below
PLEASE SEND RESPONSES TO:

Dnorman@xyz.xyz
or
Dax R. Norman, JMIC Cohort 10
1234 Blank Street RD
79
Blankville USA, 12345
or
XYZ-XYZ-XYZX Office Phone
XYZ-XYZ-XYZ Commercial Fax, Attn: Dax Norman
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete as much of the following personal

information as you are willing. Your comments will help me to categorize the
survey responses and credibility criteria used by different industries or
professions regarding Web sites used by professionals across various
industries.
Please enter your contact data:
Your Name:
Industry Segment:
Phone Numbers:
E-mail:
Profession (What kind of work do you do?):
Date:
------------------------------------------------Page 3 Below
INSTRUCTIONS: Place an X next to your answers.
1. How do you rate yourself as an Internet user? Choose one:
___a. Expert (understand differences in search tools, and use special

features in tools.)
___b. Apprentice (know the differences in search tools, but don't use
special features.)
___c. Novice (don't know the difference between a search engine and a
directory/guide.)
Comments:
2. Do you use the Web for work related research?

___a. Daily
___b. Weekly
___c. Monthly
___d. Rarely
___e. Never
Comments:
Note: The phrase, "any source" means published, proprietary, and classified.
3. May I include your name and your responses in my Joint Military

Intelligence College thesis, which will not be public information? Choose one:
___a. Responses Only
___b. Name and Responses
___c. Neither
80
Comments:
4. May I include your name and your responses in publicly published articles
as a follow on to this thesis? Choose one:
___c. Neither
Comments:
5. Does your employer have official criteria that you are told to use for
determining the credibility of any source? "Any source" means published,
proprietary, and classified sources. Choose one:
___a. Yes, I know the official criteria for evaluating information sources.
___b. No, I don't know of official criteria for evaluating information
sources.
___c.. No, I don't know the official criteria for evaluating information
sources.
Comments:
6. List up to five criteria that you use to determine the credibility of any
information source.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
------------------------------------------------Page 4 Below
7. How credible are the following information sources given only their titles?
Choose one from the following scale:

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
Optional Comments or Why This Choice:
A. NY Times
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
81
B. Washington Post
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
C. Harvard.edu Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
D. RussianArmy.ru, Web site in Russian

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
E. RussianArmy.ru Web site in English

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
F. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in Hebrew

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
82
G. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in English
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
H. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in French

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
I. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in English

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
J. NationalGeographic.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
K. JanesDefenseWeekly.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
83
L. InformationWeek.com Web site
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
M. DowJonesInteractive.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
------------------------------------------------Page 5 Below
8. How much credibility does each of the following factors add the total
credibility of a Web site? Use the following scale:

A. Recommended by a subject-matter expert.

B. Recommended by a generalist.
84
C. Listed by an Internet subject guide that evaluates Web sites.

D. Listed in a search engine such as Alta Vista.

E. Listed in a Web-directory organized by people, such as yahoo.

F. Content is perceived current.

G. Content is perceived accurate.

H. A peer or editor reviewed the content.

85
I. Content's bias is obvious.

J. Author is reputable.
K. Author is associated with a reputable organization.

L. Publisher, or Web-host is reputable.

M. Content can be corroborated with other sources.

86
N. Other Web sites link to or give credit to the evaluated site.
O. The server or Internet domain is a recognized copyrighted or trademark

name such as IBM.com ,
P. There is a statement of attribution.

Q. Professional appearance of the Web site.

R. Professional writing style of the Web site.

END OF SURVEY
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ASSIST ME WITH THIS PROJECT.
87
XYZ-XYZ-XYZX office
XYZ-XYZ-XYZX home
dnorman@xyz.xyz <mailto:dnorman@xyz.xyz>
88
APPENDIX C
SURVEY TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
The following text is shown in its original format, except that
“incredible” was changed to “non-credible” to maintain consistency with the
thesis. Also, internal contact phone numbers, and E-mail address were
removed.
To: Professional Researchers and Analysts

From: Dax Norman, Joint Military Intelligence College Graduate Student
Your assistance is respectfully requested.
Please take about 20 minutes to answer the attached multiple-choice

questions, and E-mail your answers to dnorman@carr.org by 10 Aug. 2001.
This is best done by clicking on "Reply" to sender in your E-mail tool and
include this message. Please share this survey with any other analysts or
researchers who you think may be interested.
WHY:
I am conducting research for my Masters Thesis at the Joint Military
Intelligence College. To do this I need assistance from many other analysts
who use the Web professionally to find information. I understand that your
time is valuable and I sincerely appreciate your assistance. I hope to
demonstrate through this research which criteria is most widely accepted for
measuring the credibility of Web sites. Also, your comments will help me to
categorize the survey responses, and credibility criteria used by different
industries or professions regarding Web sites used by professionals across
various industries.
PRIVACY:
You do not need to include your name; however, if you choose to include your
name, it will only be used by me to contact you if I need more information
regarding your comments. I will not quote you directly unless you indicate in
Questions 3 and 4 that I may do so. Otherwise, only me and my Thesis
Chairman, Professor Alex Cummins (410-854-4605) will have access to
respondent names. Any record of the names in association with the
responses will be destroyed after the research is completed, except those
names included in the thesis with permission.
89
INSTRUCTIONS:
Instructions for responding to this research survey are included on page 2 of
the survey. My preferred method is to type an X next to your answers and E-
mail this survey back to dnorman@carr.org. This is most easily done by
clicking on "Reply" in your E-mail tool. Please use the comments area after
each question if you feel that you need to explain an answer. However, the
"Comment" should not be used as a response choice. Please don't conduct
any research or attempt to locate the Web sites mentions here.
Please share this survey with any other analysts or researchers that you think
may be interested.
Respectfully,
R. Norman
Joint Military Intelligence College, Cohort 10
XYZ-XYZ-XYZX fax
XYZ-XYZ-XYZX other fax
dnorman@xyz.xyz home E-mail
Thesis Chairman, Professor Alex Cummins, XYZ-XYZ-XYZX
------------------------------------------------Page 1 Below

Industry Analysts and Researchers Participation is Requested.
Research Conducted by
Dax R. Norman
JMIC, Cohort 10
Research conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Masters of Science in Strategic Intelligence Thesis.
8 July 2001
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and respondents,
and do not reflect the official policy or positions of the U.S. Government.
------------------------------------------------Page 2 Below
PLEASE SEND RESPONSES TO:

Email Address Removed
90
or
or
xyz-xyz-xyzx Office Phone

xyz-xyz-xyzx Commercial Fax, Attn: Dax Norman
xyz-xyz-xyzx Other Fax, Attn: Dax Norman
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete as much of the following personal

information as you are willing. Your comments will help me to categorize the
survey responses and credibility criteria used by different industries or
professions regarding Web sites used by professionals across various
industries.
Please enter your contact data:
Your Name:
Industry Segment/Organization:
Phone Numbers:
E-mail:
Profession (What kind of work do you do?):
Date:
Note: The phrase "any source" in this survey means both classified and
unclassified sources.
------------------------------------------------Page 3 Below
INSTRUCTIONS: Place an X next to your answers.
1. How do you rate yourself as an Internet user? Choose one:
___a. Expert (understand differences in search tools, and use special

features in tools.)
___b. Apprentice (know the differences in search tools, but don't use
special features.)
___c. Novice (don't know the difference between a search engine and a
directory/guide.)
Comments:
2. Do you use the Web for work related research? Choose one:
___a. Daily
___b. Weekly
___c. Monthly
___d. Rarely
___e. Never
91
Comments:
3. May I include your name and your responses in my Joint Military

Intelligence College thesis, which may not be public information? Choose
one:
___c. Neither
Comments:
4. May I include your name and your responses in publicly published articles
as a follow on to this thesis? Choose one:
___c. Neither
Comments:
5. Does your organization have official criteria that you are told to use for
determining the credibility of any source? "Any source" means published,
proprietary, and classified sources. Choose one:
___a. Yes, I know the official criteria for evaluating UNCLASSIFIED
___b. No, I don't know of official criteria for evaluating UNCLASSIFIED
___c.. No, I don't know the official criteria for evaluating UNCLASSIFIED
Choose one:
___d. Yes, I know the official criteria for evaluating CLASSIFIED
___e. No, I don't know of official criteria for evaluating CLASSIFIED
___f.. No, I don't know the official criteria for evaluating CLASSIFIED
Comments:
6. List up to five criteria that you use to determine the credibility of any
information source.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
ATTENTION PLEASE. Complete this page before reading the next page. The do
not return to this page.
------------------------------------------------Page 4 Below
92
7. How credible are the following information sources given only their titles?
Choose one from the following scale:

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
A. NY Times
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
B. Washington Post
___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
C. Harvard.edu Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
D. RussianArmy.ru, Web site in Russian

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
93
E. RussianArmy.ru Web site in English

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
F. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in Hebrew

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
G. IsraelIndependentNews.is Web site in English

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
H. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in French

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
I. FrenchIndependentNews.fr Web site in English

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
94
J. NationalGeographic.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
K. JanesDefenseWeekly.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
L. InformationWeek.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
M. DowJonesInteractive.com Web site

___5) = Credible
___4) = Undecided
------------------------------------------------Page 5 Below
8. How much credibility does each of the following factors add the total
credibility of a Web site? Use the following scale:
95
A. Recommended by a subject-matter expert.

B. Recommended by a generalist.
C. Listed by an Internet subject guide that evaluates Web sites.

D. Listed in a search engine such as Alta Vista.

E. Listed in a Web-directory organized by people, such as yahoo.

96
F. Content is perceived current.

G. Content is perceived accurate.

H. A peer or editor reviewed the content.

I. Content's bias is obvious.

J. Author is reputable.
K. Author is associated with a reputable organization.

97
L. Publisher, or Web-host is reputable.

M. Content can be corroborated with other sources.

N. Other Web sites link to or give credit to the evaluated site.

O. The server or Internet domain is a recognized copyrighted or trademark

name such as IBM.com ,
P. There is a statement of attribution.

98
Q. Professional appearance of the Web site.

R. Professional writing style of the Web site.

9. How credible must an Intelligence source be to use its data in the following
intelligence products? Use includes when you would use qualifiers such as
"possible survived". Choose the required level of credibility for each type of
intelligence.
Scale:
___7) No Opinion
A. Research, or topic summaries.

___7) No Opinion
B. Current, day-to-day developments.

___7) No Opinion
99
C. Estimative, identifies trends or forecasts opportunities or threats.

___7) No Opinion
D. Operational, tailored, focused to support an activity.

___7) No Opinion
E. Scientific, and technical, in-depth, focused assessments.

___7) No Opinion
F. Warning, an alert to take action.

___7) No Opinion
END OF SURVEY
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ASSIST ME WITH THIS PROJECT.
100
101
APPENDIX D
CRITERIA ANALYSTS CURRENTLY USE TO JUDGE CREDIBILITY
Table 15. Survey Question 6: Credibility Criteria Analysts Currently

Use.112
Criteria: Coun Percen Valid Cumulativ
t t Percent e Percent
corroborated 28 10.0 10.0 10.0
bias 14 5.0 5.0 14.9
reputation of source 10 3.6 3.6 18.5
source authority 8 2.8 2.8 21.4
presentation 7 2.5 2.5 23.8
date of information 6 2.1 2.1 26.0
original source 6 2.1 2.1 28.1
site owner 5 1.8 1.8 29.9
reputable publisher 5 1.8 1.8 31.7
current 5 1.8 1.8 33.5
reputable author 5 1.8 1.8 35.2
source knowledge of subject 5 1.8 1.8 37.0
content 4 1.4 1.4 38.4
motive 4 1.4 1.4 39.9
likelihood source would know the 4 1.4 1.4 41.3
information
reasonable 3 1.1 1.1 42.3
reliability 3 1.1 1.1 43.4
accuracy 3 1.1 1.1 44.5
author 3 1.1 1.1 45.6
established news service 3 1.1 1.1 46.6
source past reliability 2 .7 .7 47.3
intended audience 2 .7 .7 48.0
reputable source 2 .7 .7 48.8
expert recommendation 2 .7 .7 49.5
source identity 2 .7 .7 50.2
past reliability 2 .7 .7 50.9
cited by authoritative sources 2 .7 .7 51.6
internal consistency 2 .7 .7 52.3
nationality of author 2 .7 .7 53.0
cited by trusted source 2 .7 .7 53.7
112
Survey, question 6.
102
Use.
recommended by a trusted 2 .7 .7 54.4
source
past performance 2 .7 .7 55.2
official Web site 2 .7 .7 55.9
involved in current mission, 2 .7 .7 56.6
policy, or planning
level of detail 2 .7 .7 57.3
domain name extension 2 .7 .7 58.0
reasonable the source knows the 2 .7 .7 58.7
information
circumstances 2 .7 .7 59.4
amount of technical information 2 .7 .7 60.1
reputation of site 2 .7 .7 60.9
ePharmaceuticals 1 .4 .4 61.2
stated criteria for
inclusion of information 1 .4 .4 61.6
Dow Jones Newswire 1 .4 .4 61.9
FDA 1 .4 .4 62.3
PubMED 1 .4 .4 62.6
JAMA 1 .4 .4 63.0
reasonable with other credible 1 .4 .4 63.3
information
name of organization providing 1 .4 .4 63.7
information
interest 1 .4 .4 64.1
verifiable references 1 .4 .4 64.4
consistent with other information 1 .4 .4 64.8
corroborated by trusted source 1 .4 .4 65.1
fact based 1 .4 .4 65.5
several reports in different 1 .4 .4 65.8
languages
how other publications use the 1 .4 .4 66.2
source
resources 1 .4 .4 66.5
source available with IP access 1 .4 .4 66.9
via DoD intranet
reputation of publisher 1 .4 .4 67.3
classified corroborated by 1 .4 .4 67.6
unclassified
own knowledge 1 .4 .4 68.0
publication source 1 .4 .4 68.3
history of reliability 1 .4 .4 68.7
background supplied with 1 .4 .4 69.0
Website
103
Use.
long established 1 .4 .4 69.4
source is identified 1 .4 .4 69.8
site owner apparent 1 .4 .4 70.1
personal experience with the 1 .4 .4 70.5
source
utility 1 .4 .4 70.8
sources non-internet work 1 .4 .4 71.2
reputable 1 .4 .4 71.5
established print publications 1 .4 .4 71.9
publication reputation 1 .4 .4 72.2
past publications 1 .4 .4 72.6
author locatable 1 .4 .4 73.0
past validity 1 .4 .4 73.3
mainstream source 1 .4 .4 73.7
topic area audio and video 1 .4 .4 74.0
several reports on following dates 1 .4 .4 74.4
second opinion of site 1 .4 .4 74.7
reliability of author 1 .4 .4 75.1
willingness make corrections 1 .4 .4 75.4
published industry journal 1 .4 .4 75.8
industry analysts 1 .4 .4 76.2
financial analysts 1 .4 .4 76.5
domain names 1 .4 .4 76.9
proper attribution and dates 1 .4 .4 77.2
past accuracy 1 .4 .4 77.6
quality of information 1 .4 .4 77.9
proximity to origin 1 .4 .4 78.3
includes citations 1 .4 .4 78.6
past use of source 1 .4 .4 79.0
experience 1 .4 .4 79.4
publisher 1 .4 .4 79.7
media source 1 .4 .4 80.1
authoritative quotes 1 .4 .4 80.4
reasonable current 1 .4 .4 80.8
consistent with confidential 1 .4 .4 81.1
information
source past credibility 1 .4 .4 81.5
IP address 1 .4 .4 81.9
ISP 1 .4 .4 82.2
direct or indirect collection 1 .4 .4 82.6
associated with credible 1 .4 .4 82.9
organization
several reports in geographic 1 .4 .4 83.3
area newspapers
104
Use.
sources used 1 .4 .4 83.6
knowledge about source 1 .4 .4 84.0
information flow 1 .4 .4 84.3
cited by other analysts 1 .4 .4 84.7
source name recognizable 1 .4 .4 85.1
outstanding organization 1 .4 .4 85.4
is this their profession 1 .4 .4 85.8
author hobbyist or a professor 1 .4 .4 86.1
reliable past reporting 1 .4 .4 86.5
second party evaluation 1 .4 .4 86.8
witting or not 1 .4 .4 87.2
collection conditions 1 .4 .4 87.5
source background 1 .4 .4 87.9
relevancy 1 .4 .4 88.3
consistency 1 .4 .4 88.6
association with government 1 .4 .4 89.0
scholarly journals 1 .4 .4 89.3
government publications 1 .4 .4 89.7
educational reference source 1 .4 .4 90.0
stability of information 1 .4 .4 90.4
copyrighted material 1 .4 .4 90.7
attribution provided 1 .4 .4 91.1
reputable url 1 .4 .4 91.5
site owner corporate or 1 .4 .4 91.8
government
professional language 1 .4 .4 92.2
professional appearance 1 .4 .4 92.5
lists sources 1 .4 .4 92.9
personal contacts 1 .4 .4 93.2
industry consultants 1 .4 .4 93.6
veracity 1 .4 .4 94.0
relation to government 1 .4 .4 94.3
external consistency 1 .4 .4 94.7
trusted source 1 .4 .4 95.0
reasonableness 1 .4 .4 95.4
source past behavior 1 .4 .4 95.7
past use of deception 1 .4 .4 96.1
collection method 1 .4 .4 96.4
past reliability of source 1 .4 .4 96.8
subject 1 .4 .4 97.2
size of site 1 .4 .4 97.5
how facts are divulged 1 .4 .4 97.9
proximity to original source 1 .4 .4 98.2
sources job 1 .4 .4 98.6
105
Use.
first hand knowledge 1 .4 .4 98.9
experience with source 1 .4 .4 99.3
published by an organization 1 .4 .4 99.6
personal experience with subject 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 281 100.0 100.0
106
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Jan and Marsha Tate. “The Web as a Research Tool: Evaluation
Techniques.” Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University. Chester,
PA. URL: <http://www.science.widener.edu/~withers.evalout.htm. >
Accessed
13 March 2001.
Basch, Reva. Secrets of the Super Net Searchers. Wilton, CT : Pemberton

Press, 1996.
Bates, Mary Ellen. Presentation to WebSearch University Conference in

Reston, VA, 10 September 2001.
Bowen, Wyn, Dr. “Intelligence: A Valuable National Security Resource.” Jane’s

Intelligence Review. 1 November 1999. Dow Jones Interactive, “Publications
Library,” “All Publications,” Search Terms “Open Source Intelligence.” URL:
< http://djinteractive.com>. Accessed 4 March 2001.
Clift, A. Denis. Clift Notes: Intelligence and the Nation’s Security. Washington,
D.C.: Joint Military Intelligence College, 1999.
Cooke, Alison. Authoritative Guide to Evaluating Information on the Internet.

New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 1999.
Director of Central Intelligence. Director of Central Intelligence Directive

2/12. Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1 March 1994.
E-mail Survey. “Joint Military Intelligence College Thesis Survey: Credibility

Criteria for Web Sites.” Conducted by the author, July-August 2001.
G. & C. Merriam Co., Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G.

& G. Merriam Co., 1975.
International Telecommunications Union. URL:< http://www.itu.int >.

Accessed
10 December 2001.
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Joint Pub 1-02. Department of Defense Dictionary of

Military and Associated Terms, URL:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/ data/f/02542.html. Accessed
13 February 2000.
KoreanNewsSite. URL: < http://KoreanNewsSite.com>. Pseudonym. Accessed

9 December 2001.
107
Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967.
NY Times On the Web. URL: < http://nytimes.com >. Accessed 9 December

2001.
Simmons, Robert M., Major, USA. Open Source Intelligence: An Examination

of Its Exploitation in the Defense Intelligence Community. MSSI Thesis.
Washington, DC: Joint Military Intelligence College, August 1995.
Spot Image Corporation. URL:< http://www.spot.com > Accessed 10

December 2001.
Steele, Robert D. Intelligence and Counterintelligence: Proposed Program for the

21st Century. URL: http://www.oss.net/OSS21. Accessed 5 January 2000.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Using Structured Interviewing Techniques.

Gaithersburg, MD: GAO, June 1991.
108
ANNEX 1.
SURVEY RESULTS
(Not included in original thesis.)
The following survey results tables are included to enable other

researchers to perform their own analysis. These results may also serve as a
baseline for future comparison to new survey data. The column labeled
“response” represents each respondent who indicated in question 4 that his
responses may be used in publications for the general public. Those
respondents who answered “neither” to question 4 are not included in these
survey results. The number of respondents who answered no were very few
and can be deduced by counting the number of times a number is skipped in
the “response” column.
Questions that did not apply to respondents because the question only
applied to intelligence community analysts are represented by “999”. The
word “blank”, or “0” represents questions, which could have been answered
but were not.
It is important to remind the reader that the views expressed

in this paper and these survey results are those of the author and
the respondents and do not reflect the official policy or position of
the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government, or the
respondents employers. This survey was administered during the
summer of 2001 by E-mail to participants who had first been
contacted by the researcher or associates of the researcher with in
government, industry, and academia.
109
RESPONCE CATEGORY SEGMENT PROFESSI Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q5PART2
1 3 College Educator a a a a b 999
2 1 Intell IAnalyst b c a a b 999
3 2 Business Research a a b b b 999
4 2 InfoTech Executiv b b b b a 999
5 2 Research CompSci a b a a b 999
6 1 Defense Info Res a a b a a 999
8 1 Defense IAnalyst a b b a b 999
9 2 Health Research a a a a a 999
10 1 Defense IAnalyst a a b b b 999
11 3 College Educator b a a a b 999
12 1 Defense IAnalyst b b b a c 999
13 2 Finance CPA a a b a b 999
14 3 College Educator a b b b b 999
15 2 InfoTech blank a a a a b 999
16 2 Business Research b a b b c 999
17 1 Trade Linguist a a b b b 999
18 3 College Educator a b a a b 999
21 1 Defense CompSci a a b a b 999
22 1 Defense IAnalyst b a a a a 999
23 1 Defense IAnalyst b a b b b 999
24 2 Medicine Libraria a a a a a 999
25 2 Law Lawyer a a a a b 999
26 1 Defense IAnalyst a a b a a 999
27 1 Defense IAnalyst b c a a a 999
28 1 Defense IAnalyst a a b a b 999
30 1 Defense Training a a b b c 999
31 1 Defense IAnalyst b a b b a 999
32 1 Intell IAnalyst a b b a b blank
33 1 Intell IAnalyst b b a a b e
35 1 Intell IAnalyst a b a a b d
36 1 Intell IAnalyst b a a a b e
37 1 Intell IAnalyst b d b b blank d
39 1 Intell IAnalyst a a a a b blank
40 1 Comms Research a a a a b e
41 1 Intell IAnalyst a a b a b e
42 1 Intell IAnalyst b a a a b e
43 1 Intell IAnalyst a a b b b e
45 1 Defense IAnalyst a a b b b blank
46 2 Intell IAnalyst a a b b b e
47 1 Defense Library b a a a b e
48 1 Defense IAnalyst b b b a b e
49 1 Intell IAnalyst b a b a c f
50 1 Intell IAnalyst b a a a b blank
51 1 Intell IAnalyst a a a a b e
52 1 Intell Library b a b b b d
53 1 Intell IAnalyst a a b b b d
54 1 Intell IAnalyst b d a a c f
55 1 Intell IAnalyst a a b a a d
56 1 Intell IAnalyst c d a a b blank
57 1 Intell IAnalyst b c b b b d
58 1 Intell IAnalyst a c a a b blank
59 1 Intell IAnalyst a a b a b d
60 1 Intell IAnalyst a d a a c f
62 1 Intell Physics a a a a b e
63 1 Defense IAnalyst a a b a b blank
64 1 Defense IAnalyst c d b b b e
65 1 Intell IAnalyst b c b b b blank
Q6
verifiable references, data verifiable, author expert in subject, author associated with recognized organization.
Author, fact based, credibility of publisher
resources, bias, interest, currency, verifiable
published industry journal, industry analysts, financial analysts, industry cosultants, personal contacts
lists references or sources, professional appearance, profossional language, referrenced by trusted source, recommen
author, publisher, original source, auhor's expertise
owner of site, presentation, content, coroborated, professional presentation
JAMA, PubMED, FDA, ePharmaceuticals, Dow Jones Newswire
own knowledge, author's credentials, cited by other authoritative sources, accuracy, presentation, corroborative
timeliness, authority of author, affiliation of author, original source, expert recommendation
several reports in different languages, several reports in target area newspapers, several reports on followig dates
locate author, past publications, pulication reputation, established print publications, site investors, corroborati
Site suppliers and funders, professionalism, content, bias, reputation
is ita a kown and trusted source and author, trusted recommendation, perceived bias, site ownership and sponsorship
source is identified, corroboration, accuracy, clarity, current
well known and respected, long established, background supplied with website, history of reliability, balanced and u
publication source, reputation of vendor
personal experience with the source, personal experience with subject, profesional appearance and utility, sources n
Corroboration, ownership, history of validity
Established news service, corroboration, secondary evaluation of primary site, mainstream source,
credentials, corroboration, common sense, reliability, climate surrounding activities
reputable news service, reliability of author, author's knowledge of subject, corroborative, willingness make correc
stated criteria for inclusion of information, author's authority, corroborative, stability of information, appropria
reputation of publication or site, corporate or government owner, reputation or credentials of author, cited by othe
Educational reference source, government publications, established news services, scholarly journals
association with government, reliability, veracity, motives, experience of source
national origin, relation to government, bias, internal consistency, external consistency
author, nationality of author, feasibility of information, date of information
presentation, published by an organization rather than individual, content, age of information, experience with sour
original source with first hand knowledge, involved in current mission, policy, or planning, level of involvement cu
how close to the original source, past reliability, reputation of source, likelyhod source would know the informatio
name of organization providing information, data of material, size of the site
data repeated in other sources, does it fit with other credible information, who is the information from (govt, medi
Author and sponsor of site, subject, amount of technical information, date of information
ability t verify information against other sources, past reliability of source, does unclassified information suppor
collection system, past use of deception, supportive information, source identity
easonableness, consistency with other information, trusted source
reliability from experience, accuracy by judgement of factual possibility, consistency, relavency
author's bias, age of information, corrobation with other sources
background of the source, past credibility, motive, corroboration, timeliness
corroborative, agreement with personal views expressed in private, environmental influences impacting source, check
past performance, authority of source, does the information correlate with known information
domain extension, author, media source, publishing house, experience
past use of source, source cited by a trusted source, source includes citations, known bias6
reputation, closeness to original source, corroboration, internal consistency, bias
does the source have access to the information provided, past reporting, bias, is it a source
reputation of source, specificity of source information, corroboration, quality of information
past accuracy, bias, general reliability on intelligence vs press, access of reporter to source information
known and reputable source, corroboration by trusted source, appropriateness of source for the informatin sought
past reliability, corroborative, known bias, target audeance, age of information, proper attribution and dates
blank
domain names, IP address, ISP, coroborative
scientific information including specifications, official company web sites
direct or indirect intelligence collection, collection conditions,who is original source, witting or not, motives, s
domain name extensions, already evaluated in other media, verifiable, information provided already know to be true,
reliability of past reporting, depth of information provided, reputation of source
blank
source name recognizable, reputain, commonly used source cited by other analysts or writers, source is reporting in
bia, bona fides, originality of information, corroboraton with independent sources, flow of information, generation
freshness of information, source's access to the information, motivation for providing the information, level of exp
reputation of author, what is known about the source, personal knowledge about the source, how other publications u
publisher or author of information, sources used, datga of the information, or published date, compare to other sour
Q7A Q7B Q7C Q7D Q7E Q7F Q7G Q7H Q7I Q7J Q7K Q7L
55 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5
55 5 blank blank blank blank blank blank 6 6 blank
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
55 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5
55 4 3 3 blank blank blank blank 7 6 5
66 6 4 4 4 5 4 4 6 5 5
77 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 5
66 6 blank 5 blank 4 5 5 6 6 5
55 4 blank blank blank blank blank blank 5 5 4
45 5 4 blank blank 4 blank 4 4 4 4
76 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6
56 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 4
66 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
55 blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank 5 5
55 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4
54 5 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 6 5
66 6 4 4 3 3 5 5 7 6 5
55 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 6 7 5
#NULL! 5 5 1 1 4 4 3 3 4 6 5
55 4 4 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4
65 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 6 6
55 5 4 4 blank 4 4 4 4 4 5
66 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 6 6 4
55 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4
55 4 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 6 5
44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 4
55 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4
33 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 6 4
53 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 4
6 blank 6 3 3 4 4 5 5 blank 6 4
66 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 5
66 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 blank
55 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
54 5 4 4 blank blank blank blank 5 5 blank
35 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 5 5 4
66 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6
65 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 7 6
65 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 4
55 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 4
44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
64 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 6 7 7
54 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
66 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 5
66 blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank 5 000
67 5 2 1 4 4 3 3 6 6 5
66 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 5
55 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 5
66 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 5
55 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
54 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
44 4 5 3 4 3 5 5 5 5 5
44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6
55 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
66 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 6 5 5
55 6 4 4 4 4 blank 4 4 5 4
55 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4
#NULL! 5 blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank blank
44 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Q7M Q7N Q7O Q7P Q7Q Q7R Q7S Q8A Q8B Q8C Q8D Q8E
6 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 1 1 2
blank 999 999 999 999 999 999 6 6 5 1 2
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 3 2 3 1 2
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 3 4 5 5
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 5 4 1 1
6 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 4 4 4
4 999 999 999 999 99 999 5 4 3 2 2
7 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 5 4 4
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 5 4 3 3
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 3 4 1 1
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 4 3 #NULL! #NULL! 4
6 999 999 999 999 999 999 6 5 4 2 3
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 3 2 2
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 3 4 1 3
nu 999 999 999 999 999 999 4 0 0 0 0
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 5 5 5
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 5 3 3
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 5 4 3 3
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 4 2 2 2 #NULL!
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 6 1 3 3 3
5 999 999 999 999 99 99 5 5 4 4 5
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 6 5 1 1 1
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 6 4 4 4 5
6 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 5 3 2 2
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 3 4 3 3
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 3 3 3
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 3 1 1 1 1
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 4 4 4 4
4 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 5 5 4 4
5 999 999 999 999 999 999 5 2 1 1 1
6 6 5 5 6 6 5 4 3 0 1 1
6 5 5 6 5 5 6 6 1 3 1 3
5 4 5 6 4 6 4 5 4 5 1 3
5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 1
5 4 5 5 4 6 blank 5 1 3 1 2
4 4 6 6 5 6 6 5 3 3 2 3
6 4 6 5 5 6 6 5 4 5 3 3
6 4 5 7 7 7 7 5 5 3 1 3
5 3 blank 6 6 6 5 5 3 3 1 2
4 3 5 5 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2
blank blank 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 1 1
6 5 6 5 5 6 7 5 5 4 3 0
5 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 3 3 4 2
5 4 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 3 2 2
000 4 5 6 6 6 6 4 3 3 3 3
5 4 6 6 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 3
5 4 6 7 6 7 4 5 4 5 2 2
5 4 6 6 4 6 6 5 4 4 2 2
6 4 6 5 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 4
5 4 5 5 4 4 6 5 4 5 4 5
4 3 5 4 3 5 4 5 3 4 3 3
5 4 6 6 6 5 4 5 4 4 3 2
5 4 5 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 1 1
4 4 5 6 4 5 6 5 3 2 1 1
4 3 5 6 4 7 6 5 2 3 1 2
6 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 3 1 2
4 5 6 6 7 7 4 6 4 5 3 2
5 4 5 6 7 5 5 5 4 3 3 3
4 4 6 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 0
5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
blank 5 6 7 6 6 blank 6 5 4 2 2
5 3 5 6 6 5 5 4 2 2 1 1
Q8F Q8G Q8H Q8I Q8J Q8K Q8L Q8M Q8N Q8O Q8P Q8Q
3 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 4
4 4 6 5 6 6 5 6 4 2 3 3
4 6 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 1
4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 5 4
4 5 4 2 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4
3 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 1 3 2
4 4 6 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 4
4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4
4 4 5 4 4 4 1 5 2 2 4 2
6 6 6 4 #NULL! 5 3 6 5 5 4 5
2 4 5 2 5 5 5 6 3 4 4 4
3 4 5 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3
3 5 5 1 5 5 4 6 4 3 3 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 4 4
4 5 5 1 5 5 5 6 5 4 4 4
4 5 6 6 5 5 4 6 5 4 6 4
4 4 3 2 5 5 3 5 3 4 0 2
1 1 3 1 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 1
5 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5
2 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 1 1 1 1
6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4
4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 4 3
4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 3
2 4 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1
5 4 5 2 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 4
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 1
0 6 1 2 5 5 5 6 3 4 3 4
3 5 5 2 5 5 4 6 2 4 5 4
5 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4
5 5 5 5 6 5 3 6 4 3 4 3
4 2 3 1 4 3 3 5 1 3 3 3
5 5 3 1 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 3
5 5 5 2 5 5 3 6 4 1 4 1
3 5 5 2 5 5 4 6 2 4 5 4
3 4 4 2 4 5 2 5 5 1 4 1
5 6 4 2 4 4 3 5 4 2 3 1
1 0 3 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1
5 0 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 3 3
3 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 3 3
4 5 4 3 3 4 2 5 4 2 3 2
4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 4 3
3 5 5 1 5 5 3 5 3 3 3 1
2 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 1
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 4
5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3
5 5 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 3 3
3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 4 6 5 1
2 5 5 1 3 3 2 5 2 2 2 2
1 4 5 4 6 4 5 6 2 2 2 2
3 4 5 3 5 4 3 5 5 2 4 4
5 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 2
3 3 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 2
3 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 3
5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
4 4 5 4 5 5 4 6 4 2 4 1
3 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 1 2 1
Q8R Q9A Q9B Q9C Q9D Q9E Q9F
2 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
1 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
5 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
2 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
0 999 999 999 999 999 999
5 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
5 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
1 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 999 999 999 999 999 999
2 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
0 999 999 999 999 999 999
5 999 999 999 999 999 999
6 999 999 999 999 999 999
3 999 999 999 999 999 999
4 4 5 5 5 4 5
4 5 4 5 3 5 2
4 3 3 5 5 5 5
4 6 4 6 5 6 4
3 4 4 4 4 5 5
3 4 4 5 5 4 4
1 5 5 4 5 3 6
4 6 5 5 6 6 6
2 5 3 5 4 7 2
1 4 3 4 5 5 6
7 5 5 5 5 5 1
4 5 7 4 5 5 5
1 1 1 1 3 1 1
3 4 4 4 5 5 7
3 4 4 4 5 4 5
3 6 5 5 5 5 4
2 4 5 4 5 7 5
2 5 5 4 4 3 5
4 7 5 5 6 5 6
5 4 3 3 3 3 2
3 6 6 6 6 6 6
1 3 3 2 3 1 4
1 7 7 7 7 4 7
2 5 3 4 5 5 3
2 7 7 7 7 7 7
3 4 4 3 5 7 4
2 6 6 6 6 6 6
3 4 5 5 6 5 5
3 5 5 5 5 5 4
5 5 4 4 5 4 4
2 5 5 5 5 5 5
1 4 2 5 1 5 2

How To Identify Credible Sources On The

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

How To Identify Credible Sources On The

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

HOW TO IDENTIFY CREDIBLE SOURCES ON THE WEB

Unclassified thesis submitted to the Faculty

Foremost, I am thankful for the endless patience of my wife and

and often carried the ball when I should have.

I am grateful to Professor Jerry P. Miller, Director of the Competitive

Intelligence Center at Simmons College in Boston, for his patient and

persistent help in constructing the thesis survey.

practical assistance, and encouragement.

Military Intelligence College Master’s program by volunteering to serve as

Thesis Chairman and Reader.

1. INTRODUCTION TO OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION…………………………...1

Key Issue: OSINF Relevance to Intelligence, 19

Key Issue: OSINF Relevance to Intelligence, 35

A. Web Site Evaluation Worksheets……………………………………….…66

B. Survey to Industry and Academia……………………………………..….77

C. Survey to Intelligence Community………………………………………..88

D. Criteria Analysts Currently Use to Judge Credibility………………..101

Annex 1. Survey Results (not included in original thesis.) ………………………109

1. Question 8a to 8r, Recommended Criteria and Relative Values (Mean)…

2. Questions 9a-f. Required Level of Source Credibility”

3. Question 5. Part 1, Official Criteria for Unclassified Sources……………

4. Question 5. Part 2, Official Criteria for Classified Sources…………………

5. Questions 7a, b, c, j, k, l, m, Credibility of Well-Known Titles……………...

6. Questions 7d, e, f, g, h, i, Credibility of Obscure Titles, and

7. Questions 7n to 7s, Credibility of All Classified Sources……………………

8. Credibility of Open Sources Compared to Classified Sources……………...

9. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without Annotations…………………..

11. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, ITU……………………………

12. Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, NY Times……………….…

13.Benchmark Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet, Korea………………………..

14.Blank Web Site Evaluation Work Sheet……………………………………….….

15.Survey Question 6: Credibility Criteria Analysts Currently Use…………...

1. Question 7q, Credibility of IMINT Without Annotations…………………..

TITLE OF THESIS: How to Identify Credible Sources on the Web.

STUDENT: Dax R. Norman

CLASS NO. PGIP 0001 DATE: 19 December 2001

THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR: Dr. Alex Cummins

SECOND COMMITTEE MEMBER: Robyn Winder

evaluating the credibility of Web sites and communicating that evaluation to

analysts. Such a capability is needed because of the increased opportunity to

classified collection; and the ever-present demand on analysts to analyze and

report at the edge of their knowledge. With so many intelligence sources

available, including the Web, analysts must be able to identify credible

sources. The alternative is to evaluate every piece of information collected

Web, evaluating data validity is not practical.

That is why the Intelligence Community (IC) needs a generally agreed

the Web site and the subject expertise of the evaluator.

This thesis collected criteria recommended by professional Web

searchers and surveyed industry, academia, and the Intelligence Community

criteria and the relative credibility scale, subject-matter experts throughout

source evaluation with the entire IC.

source Web sites; presents a relative credibility scale based on benchmarked

sources to classified sources. Credible information can be located on the Web,

INTRODUCTION TO OPEN SOURCE EVALUATION

Along with the information technology revolution has come an equally

important increase in information access and information sources via the

World-Wide-Web. However, such abundance is a double-edged sword because

of source, including children, students, professors, conspiracy theorists,

researchers, advertisers, government data, and government misinformation.

This thesis will establish Intelligence Community criteria for identifying

sites based on criteria recommended by professional Web searchers and

agreed to by intelligence analysts. Most analysts today apparently evaluate