As much of our research is now done online through the internet it can sometimes be difficult to determine which source is more credible than another. In a Stanford report on evaluating digital information, they took two professional organization websites on the same topic for students, professional historians, and professional fact-checkers to evaluate which is more credible. One organization was founded decades ago by medical researchers, the other by a hate group. Only the last group, professional fact-checkers, were able to determine the medical organization as being credible, whereas the others took too long or chose incorrectly. The Stanford report shows that even professionals can have a difficult time in determining the credibility of a professionally-made and well-written website. (Wineburg and McGrew)

By doing a little more research using the four moves you can eliminate certain sources and find the best fitting ones to support your ideas on the topic:

The four moves: Stop, Investigate the source, find better coverage, trace the original context.

1. Stop
2. Investigate
3. Find Better Coverage
4. Trace Claims

Be mindful that when following the four moves you do not fall down the “rabbit hole” of clicking that can deter your research and waste your time. Background on organizations, the author’s qualifications, and source information should be easy to find and take only a minute.

Stop

The first move is the simplest. STOP reminds you of two things.

First, when you first hit a page or post and start to read it — STOP. Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is. If you don’t have that information, use the other moves to get a sense of what you’re looking at. Don’t read it or share media until you know what it is.

Second, after you begin to use the other moves it can be easy to go down a rabbit hole, going off on tangents only distantly related to your original task. If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed in your fact-checking efforts, STOP and take a second to remember your purpose. If you just want to repost, read an interesting story, or get a high-level explanation of a concept, it’s probably good enough to find out whether the publication is reputable. If you are doing deep research of your own, you may want to chase down individual claims in a newspaper article and independently verify them.

Please keep in mind that both sorts of investigations are equally useful. Quick and shallow investigations will form most of what we do on the web. We get quicker with the simple stuff in part so we can spend more time on the stuff that matters to us. But in either case, stopping periodically and reevaluating our reaction or search strategy is key.

Investigate

The idea here is that you want to know what you’re reading before you read it.

Now, you don’t have to do a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation into a source before you engage with it. But if you’re reading a piece on economics by a Nobel prize-winning economist, you should know that before you read it. Conversely, if you’re watching a video on the many benefits of milk consumption that was put out by the dairy industry, you want to know that as well.

This doesn’t mean the Nobel economist will always be right and that the dairy industry can’t be trusted. But knowing the expertise and agenda of the source is crucial to your interpretation of what they say. Taking sixty seconds to figure out where media is from before reading will help you decide if it is worth your time, and if it is, help you to better understand its significance and trustworthiness.

Find Better Coverage

Sometimes you don’t care about the particular article or video that reaches you. You care about the claim the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. You want to know if it represents a consensus viewpoint, or if it is the subject of much disagreement.

In this case, your best strategy may be to ignore the source that reached you, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim. If you get an article that says koalas have just been declared extinct from the Save the Koalas Foundation, your best bet might not be to investigate the source, but to go out and find the best source you can on this topic, or, just as importantly, to scan multiple sources and see what the expert consensus seems to be. In these cases we encourage you to “find other coverage” that better suits your needs — more trusted, more in-depth, or maybe just more varied. In lesson two we’ll show you some techniques to do this sort of thing very quickly.

Do you have to agree with the consensus once you find it? Absolutely not! But understanding the context and history of a claim will help you better evaluate it and form a starting point for future investigation.

Example: 3. Find Better Coverage

To investigate sleep paralysis being linked to people thinking they are being abducted by aliens, you should find the studies and reports that the newspaper referred to. Since they did not provide the title of those reports, the library databases will likely provide an answer as to whether or not there is any research on this subject.

In EBSCO/Academic Search Premier, a simple keyword search for “sleep paralysis alien abductions” brings up at least two peer- reviewed articles and another two writings on the subject. The fact that there are scholarly publications on the subject shows that there is primary information out there for you to use.

Trace Claims

Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Maybe there’s a video of a fight between two people with Person A as the aggressor. But what happened before that? What was clipped out of the video and what stayed in? Maybe there’s a picture that seems real but the caption could be misleading. Maybe a claim is made about a new medical treatment based on a research finding — but you’re not certain if the cited research paper really said that.

In these cases we’ll have you trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in its original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.