The Internet is a great resource, but this document takes a critical look at the DHMO.org website, in particular, and examines the categories during this evaluation that address critical issues specific tools to specifically evaluate this web page. Mainly using the web page evaluation checklist published by UC Berkeley1 and simultaneously SPIDER2 which is an acronym for Source, Purpose, Information, Domain, Educational and Reliability. It shows you how the web page evaluation checklist helped you discern the authenticity of the web page. I have enjoyed reading it for as long as I can remember. Books, magazines, newspapers – anything I could get my hands on, I read. In the early 1990s, with the availability of the Internet, I could easily type a few words of my choice and get information back. I took it for granted that the results were information; but some websites contained opinions and not necessarily facts. Today, use a few strategies to quickly scan the authenticity of a website using a Web Page Evaluation Checklist published by UC Berkeley1 or SPIDER2 which stands for Source, Purpose, Information, Domain, Educational and Reliability. I choose to evaluate the authenticity of the website http://www.dhmo.org/ with the web page evaluation checklist. It is divided into five categories; Look at the URL, scan the perimeter of the page to answer specific questions, look for quality indicators, what are others saying? and everything comes back? I run the first process. I start by clicking on the link and it takes me to a very colorful page organized into three columns. The first column is titled Special Reports and the links are below. The second column is centered on the web page and is titled Welcome. The third c...... half of the document...... SPIDER a strategy for evaluating websites (technological connection) (source, purpose, information, domain, training and reliability). Worthington: Linworth Publishing Company.3Jonassen, D., Kim, B., (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: justifications and design guidelines. Research and development of educational technologies. 58(4). 439-458.ResourcesScott, S. (2009). Students' perceptions of learning critical thinking through discussion in a technology classroom: A case study. Journal of Technology Studies. 34(1): 39-45. Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A. (2010, May 5) . General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ Engle, Michael (2012, September 19) Cornell University: http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu - Evaluating Web Sites: Criteria and tools