When considering the history of the Holocaust, one must consider a vast array of facts and information.  As information circulates, some well known or documented knowledge can become skewed, misunderstood, or entirely falsified. The following are examples of amateur websites that have presented themselves as “factual”. While a number of the facts presented in the pages are not necessarily incorrect, due to the lack of proper citation, the “facts” presented must be considered unreliable.

This first site  is considered to be an amateur “fact” site for a number of reasons. Firstly, the site creators, Sarah Boyd and Emily (No Last Name), have not cited where they received their information. Secondly, the physical format of the website is relatively simple, and as it is hosted on a third party site (Prezi) it does not require much technical knowledge to create. Finally, it is likely that the creator(s) of the website created it as a class project, and may not present themselves as historical scholars.

Other characteristics of the website include a brief overview of “facts” about the Holocaust -who it targeted, how many people died, etc. The site does not appear to be bias in away, most of the information it projects is straightforward. However, one can argue, by its very nature of giving “facts” about the Holocaust it can considered a Holocaust “believer” site.

This second site is a similar to the site mentioned previously.  It presents itself as “fact” page that has links to several different “helpful sources” to spread “facts” about the Holocaust. The creator, while not directly stated, is possibly  Brook Burton, who presumably is a student of  the University of Maine.  It can be assessed that then that like the previous website, this one may have been made as a class project. Additionally, while the creator references several “helpful sources”, the information provided in the website’s “facts” section is not properly cited. The site also lacks technical sophistication.

A third site presents itself as a website “designed” to aid people who want to argue against Holocaust deniers. Unlike the websites mentioned previously, it does present citations from primary sources. However, there are a number characteristics of the website that does include it in the category of an amateur “facts” website. The creator, Ben Austin, does not present himself to be a official historical scholar. Despite referencing primary sources, he does not appear himself to be an  expert on this subject. Additionally, the website’s physical format, while “informative”, is of a low-medium quality.

This “Holocaust Flowchart” is excerpted from a website that presents itself as an amateur “facts” website that denies the Holocaust. Its main purpose is to show “flaws” in the Holocaust “theory”.  The website’s creator(s), though adamant about their views,  are not cited anywhere in the website. Additionally, the physical format of the website is low quality. The website’s “facts” are not cited and are clearly biased.

Other characteristics of the website include  a flow-chart (see above picture) that “explains” how the Holocaust did not happen. It deters any believer in the Holocaust, calling any information that supports the happening of the Holocaust to be “absurd”. The website follows through a questionnaire about one’s beliefs about the Holocaust, and then informs the reader that they “FAIL!” when questions are answered ‘incorrectly.’

 

Similar to the previous sites, this website is considered an amateur website based on the same criteria. Its creator, who only presents himself through the username “Weirdo”,  presents ‘facts’ about the Holocaust but does not cite them. They physical format of the website is basic, and it is hosted by a third party site, meaning the creator would not have had to understood web creation well in order to make it.  The websites creator, unless he can properly identify his/herself to be one, is not an “official” historical scholar. The creator’s background includes commenting and/or posting on questions involving the Holocaust, but other than this there is no evidence of the site creator being an “official” historical scholar. Therefore, the site can be categorized as amateur.