With so much information overwhelming us, it can be a challenge to recognize the credible and reliable. There are multiple frameworks available for evaluating information sources. Many of them have memorable acronyms like CRAAP or SIFT. While each takes its own approach and names its elements uniquely, all evaluation of information sources boils down to one key question.
Some academic disciplines prefer or recommend one technique over the others. Each technique offers information users valuable criteria and guidelines to use when filtering through sources.
In classes, use the framework recommended or required by your instructor for best results.
In life, just keep asking yourself that one question: Who is telling me what and why?
Currency: How timely is the information?
Relevance: How closely does the information meet your needs?
Authority: Who or what is the source of the information?
Accuracy: How reliable, truthful, and correct is the content?
Purpose: Why does the information exist?
Who created the information? Affiliations, qualifications/credentials, reputation, contact info, etc. Who published it? Who paid for it? Does the creator or publisher have a bias or a point-of-view that might affect the information?
What is the evidence? Do the claims make sense? Can claims be fact-checked? Are stories, hearsay, or innuendo used as “proof?” Do the facts given logically lead to the conclusions made?
When was the article published? When was it revised or updated? Is timeliness important for the topic or not?
Where is it published – popular magazine, academic journal, blog, news, website, etc.? If it’s a website, what kind? Newspapers, magazines, and some journals web publish. Was the information edited, reviewed, or refereed? By whom? Where did the author get their information? Are they citing sources? If so, are those sources credible?
Why was the information created? How is it meant to affect its audience? Why are they telling me this? To inform, teach, sell, entertain, persuade, or something else?
Who or what is missing that might change the interpretation or understanding of the information?
These 4 moves developed by Mike Caulfield will help you evaluate any web source.
STOP - Do you know this website or the source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the site? If not, to to the next move.
INVESTIGATE the source - you want to know what you’re reading before you read it.
FIND better coverage - When you care about the claim the article is making, ignore the source itself, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim.
TRACE claims, quotes, and media back to the original context - Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in it’s original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.
Source: Who is providing the information?
Motivation: Why are they telling me this?
Evidence. What evidence is provided for generalizations?
Logic: Do the facts logically compel the conclusions?
Left Out: What’s missing that might change our interpretation of the information?
Lateral reading is a technique used to evaluate the credibility of online information by reading across multiple sources rather than staying on a single page. Unlike traditional “vertical” reading, where a reader carefully examines content on a single website, lateral reading involves quickly leaving the original site to search for information about the source, the author, or the claims being made. This method allows readers to cross-check facts, look for additional perspectives, and gauge the trustworthiness of a source by seeing how it compares with other credible sources. Developed as a strategy for digital literacy, lateral reading is especially helpful in identifying misinformation and ensuring that readers rely on reputable sources.
Lateral reading is a process to fact check material on the web. A study conducted by the Stanford History Education Group tested the online evaluation skills of professional fact checkers vs PhD historians vs undergraduate students.
"The fact checkers [using lateral reading] proved to be fastest and most accurate [at evaluating websites], while historians and students were easily deceived by unreliable sources" (Spector).
The truth is more likely to be found in the network of links to (and commentaries about) the site than in the site itself. Lateral readers gain a better understanding as to whether to trust the facts and analysis presented by reading "across many connected sites instead of digging deep into the site at hand" (Caufield).
Works Cited
Caulfield, Mike. Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers, PressBooks, 2017, webliteracy.pressbooks.com. Accessed 08 Feb. 2024.
Spector, Carrie. "Stanford Scholars Observe 'Experts' to See How They Evaluate the Credibility of Information Online." Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, 24 Oct. 2017, ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-scholars-observe-experts-see-how-they-evaluate-credibility-information-online. Accessed 08 Feb. 2024.
Adapted from Northwest Arkansas Community College
