Skip to Main Content

ENG 101--Dabill

Additional Tools to Assess Creditability of Sources

Tools exist to evaluate the credibility of sources. Provided below is a brief tutorial on source credibility as well as additional criteria and processes for evaluating sources and information on misinformation/disinformation/fake news.

Brief tutorial

Additional criteria and processes

Misinformation/disinformation/fake news

Tutorial

Criteria and Processes for Evaluating Sources

Quick Guide

When consulting any source, consider:

  1. Authority—Who is the author? What is the point of view or frame of reference of the author?
  2. Purpose—What is the intent behind the creation of the source? Who is the intended audience?
  3. Publication and format—Who published the source? In what medium?
  4. Date of publication—When was it written? Has the information been updated?
  5. Relevance—How relevant is the source to your research? What is the scope?
  6. Documentation—Are sources cited? Who did they cite?

In-Depth Guide

Process for Evaluating Electronic/Online Information

Before evaluating a source accessed via the web, it is important to determine if the source itself can be trusted. Failure to assess if the source is what it says it is can result in much wasted time and effort. There are three strategies that can be employed to establish the reliability of a source. These strategies include:

  • Getting one's bearings--When attempting to orient oneself in an unfamiliar area of study, it is important to acquire a sense of direction by stepping back and surveying the digital landscape. It is important to acknowledge and understand the web is a maze "with trap doors and blind alleys, where websites are designed, created, and financed by groups intent upon promoting particular agendas or interests.
  • Reading laterally--After quickly scanning a website, open up new browser tabs (right click) and investigate the creditability of the original site as opposed to reading vertically or staying within a website to evaluate its reliability. Be careful not to be fooled by the scientific presentation, usefulness, graphic design, or apparent authoritativeness of an organization.
  • Practicing restraint in clicking on links--After conducting a Google search, do not open any links until examining the snippets of information provided on the search results page.

Remember to be vigilant and do not fall prey to professional-looking graphics, listings of academic references, and the allure of .edu or .org domains.

Based on information extracted from Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information.

Here is a list of general rules to apply when evaluating news obtained through social media.

  • Content: What do I know about the topic in the news post? Jot down your prior knowledge of the news post's content.
  • Motivation: Do I need to do more in-depth research, or is the information in the news post sufficient? Why did you make the decision to conduct further research or proceed with applying the list of criteria?
  • Reputation: What is the reputation of the person or organization that posted the news on social media? What do you know about the person or organization?
  • Confirmability: Can you find the same news elsewhere? Perform a simple search on Google news.
  • Evaluation: Determine whether or not the news seems credible based on the evaluation criteria. Note why or why not the news seems credible.

Extracted from Johnson, S.T., & Ewbank, A.D. (2018). Heuristics: An approach to evaluating news obtained through social media. Knowledge Quest, 47(1), pp. 8-14.

What Is Misinformation/Disinformation/Fake News

Definitions

Misinformation

(1) The action of misinforming someone; the condition of being misinformed. (2) Wrong or misleading information. (3) An instance of misinformation; an item of misinformation. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Disinformation

The dissemination of deliberately false information, especially when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the politics or opinions of those who receive it; false information so supplied. (Oxford English Dictionary)

"... there are many problems with the term fake news, and one of them is the close connection to news as a format and as an independent institution. The European Union (EU) report from the independent High Level Expert Group on fake news and online disinformation suggests abandoning the term fake news altogether (HLEG, 2018). As the term is inadequate and misleading to explain the complexity of the situation, the report rather suggests using the term disinformation, which can be defined as 'false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit'” (2018, p. 10). (Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication)

Fake News

An information ecosystem characterized by misinformation (the inadvertent sharing of false information) and disinformation (the deliberate creation and sharing of information known to be false). (Extracted from Wardle, C. (2017). Fake news. It's complicated. First Draft)

"Fake news, or hoax news, refers to false information or propaganda published under the guise of being authentic news. Fake news websites and channels push their fake news content in an attempt to mislead consumers of the content and spread misinformation via social networks and word-of-month." (webopedia)

"Fake news is made-up stuff, masterfully manipulated to look like credible journalistic reports that are easily spread online to large audiences willing to believe the fictions and spread the word." (Angie Drobnic Holan)

Types identified by media professor (Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College)

There are four broad categories of fake news websites:

  • CATEGORY 1: Fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits.
  • CATEGORY 2: Websites that may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information
  • CATEGORY 3: Websites which sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions
  • CATEGORY 4: Satire/comedy sites, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news

No single topic falls under a single category - for example, false or misleading medical news may be entirely fabricated (Category 1), may intentionally misinterpret facts or misrepresent data (Category 2), may be accurate or partially accurate but use an alarmist title to get your attention (Category 3) or may be a critique on modern medical practice (Category 4.)  Some articles fall under more than one category.  Assessing the quality of the content is crucial to understanding whether what you are viewing is true or not.   It is up to you to do the legwork to make sure your information is good.

Types identified and misinformation matrix (Claire Wardle from First Draft)

Fact Checking Sites

Tutorials

Evaluating Sources In-Depth Guide

In-depth Guide

Authority

  • What are the credentials of the author?
  • What else has the author written?
  • What is the area of expertise and/or experience of the author?
    • Is there a focus on a particular set of world views?
    • Is there a specific gender, sexual, racial, political, social, and/or cultural orientation(s) represented?
    • Is there an acceptance of some sources as being more authoritative than others?
    • Is the author affiliated with a particular institution and/or professional organization (e.g., a professor at Harvard University, President of the American Horticultural Society)?

Purpose

  • What is the objective behind the creation of the source?
    • Does the author or publisher receive some type of benefit from the creation of the source (e.g., personal, professional, or societal)?
    • Is the intent of the source to be educational and/or persuasive?
      • What (research) questions are addressed?
      • Does the author strive to provide an objective and well-balanced presentation?
  • Who is the intended audience?
    • Is it for other experts and scholars?
    • Is it for a general public?

Publication and format

  • Was it published in a scholarly publication, such as an academic journal or was it self-published?
    • Who is the publisher? Is the publisher a university press or professional organization?
    • Has it been formally peer-reviewed?
      • Were there outside editors or reviewers?
  • Has the publication adopted a particular editorial position?
    • Is the publication perceived as an outlet for the expression of conservative or progressive ideas?
    • Is the publication sponsored by and/or affiliated with any other companies or organizations? Do these companies or organizations have particular biases?
  • Was it originally published in another country, and if so in what language?
  • In what medium was the source published?
    • Was it published in print, electronically (online), or both?
    • What type of source? Is it a blog post? A YouTube video? An exposé either published in a newspaper or broadcasted on television? A print article from a magazine or journal?
      • Does the medium of the source provide an indication of the intended audience?
      • Does the medium of the source provide a clue as to its purpose?

Date of publication

  • What is the original publication date of the source?
  • Which version or edition is being consulted?
    • Do differences exist between the different versions or editions, such as new introductions or footnotes?
    • If it is an online source, is there an indication when it was last updated?
  • Are there been any changes in the field of study since the source was published?
  • Are there any published reviews, responses, or rebuttals to the presented information?

Relevance

  • How is the information presented pertinent to the topic being researched?
    • Does it analyze primary resources related to the research topic?
    • Does it identify and discuss authors or individuals related to the research topic referred to in different primary texts?
    • Is the author’s framework of analysis applicable to the identified research question?
  • What is breadth and depth of the coverage?
    • Is it a general overview or an in-depth analysis?
    • Is the scope of coverage a match to the identified research question?
    • Is the time period and geographic region relevant to the identified research question?

Documentation

  • Are sources cited?
    • If not, are there other means of verifying the reliability of the claims?
  • Who is cited?
    • Is the author affiliated with any of the authors cited in the source?
    • Are authors cited in the source associated with any particular academic movement or school of thought?
  • Examining the quotations and paraphrases from the source:
    • Is the context of the cited sources provided and accurately presented?
    • Are important elements from cited sources ignored?
    • Is the author cherry-picking facts to support their own arguments?
    • Are ideas not the author’s own appropriately cited?

Modified from University of California, Berkeley Library (2019). Evaluating resources.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

MNSU Logo

Mankato, MN 56001
1-800-722-0544

Visits and Tours

Request Information

Apply Today