The Internet is a great resource, but this article takes a critical look at the DHMO.org website, in particular, and examines the categories during this evaluation that answer specific critical questions. tools to specifically evaluate this web page. Primarily using the Web Page Evaluation Checklist published by UC Berkeley1 and simultaneously SPIDER2 which is the acronym for Source, Purpose, Information, Domain, Educational and Reliability. It tells you how the Web Page Evaluation Checklist helped discern the authenticity of the web page. I have loved reading for as long as I can remember. Books, magazines, newspapers – whatever I could find, I read. In the early 1990s, with the availability of the Internet, I could easily type in a few words of my choosing and get feedback. I took for granted that the results were information; but some websites contained opinions and not necessarily facts. Today, use a few strategies to quickly analyze the authenticity of a website using either a Web Page Evaluation Checklist published by UC Berkeley1 or SPIDER2, which is an acronym for Source, Purpose, Information , Domain, Educational and Reliability. website http://www.dhmo.org/ with web page assessment 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 does it all add up? I go through the first process. I start by clicking on the link and it takes me to a very colorful page organized in three columns. The first column is titled Special Reports and you will find links below. The second column is centered on the web page and is titled Welcome. The third c...... middle of paper ...... SPIDER a website evaluation strategy. (technological connection) (source, purpose, information, domain, education and reliability). Worthington: Linworth Publishing Company.3Jonassen, D., Kim, B., (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: designing justifications and guidelines. Research and development of educational technologies. 58(4). 439-458.ResourcesScott, S. (2009). Perceptions of students' learning critical thinking through debate 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. and Brizee, A. (May 5, 2010). General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ Engle, Michael (September 19, 2012) Cornell University: http://olinuris.library.cornell.edu - Website Rating: Criteria and tools