In our last class, we created a checklist to separate "Good" websites from "Bad" ones. For my assignment, I evaluated DHMO.org (The Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division).
At first glance, it looks highly professional. But after a closer look, it is actually the perfect example of a "Bad" website that we cannot trust.
The Trap: Why it Looks "Good"
If you just skim the homepage, it mimics our class criteria for a good site.
・Well-Organized: Like JICA’s website, the data is cleanly categorized into sections like "Environment" and "Agriculture."
・Active and Updated: It features regular updates stretching from 1997 up to 2026, making it look like a serious NGO.
The Reality: Why it is Actually "Bad"
Despite the professional design, this site triggers our major red flags for lack of authority and misleading information:
・It is a Joke: "Dihydrogen Monoxide" is just the scientific name for water. The site warns about "accidental inhalation fatalities," which is actually just the WHO statistic for drowning! It uses scary, clinical language to turn a harmless substance into a terrifying threat.
・No Real Authority: The site claims to be an official research division, but the footer reveals it is copyrighted by Tom Way (a computer science professor). The organization is completely fictional.
・The Smoking Gun Disclaimer: Tucked away at the end of their Mission Statement, they quietly write: "Content veracity is not implied."
Final Takeaway:
DHMO.org is a famous prank designed to teach media literacy. For our research, it proves a huge lesson from our checklist: Clean layout and good organization do not guarantee reliability. We must always check the Authority and Context first!
Chiho Goto
I love the way you organized this post into three sections: the trap, the reality, and the final takeaway. It makes it easy for the reader to understand what you're trying to say about the DHMO.org site.
返信削除I thought your blog was very interesting because it showed how easy it is to believe information on the internet. Before reading your blog, I had never heard of this website, so I was surprised that it was actually a joke. It made me realize that even a website that looks serious can be misleading.
返信削除I liked your explanation about checking the source of the information. I think many people only look at the design of a website and do not think about who created it. Your example is a good reminder to be more careful.
One idea for future research is to introduce another fake website or compare it with a trusted website. I think this would help readers understand the difference more clearly. Overall, your blog was easy to read, and I learned something new from it.