There are several methods and models that exist to help guide individuals in navigating misinformation. Click on the tabs below to see some ways to recognize misinformation.
Note: while these methods may work best for some, they might not work for everyone. Find a method that resonates with you for evaluating information.
Many fact checkers and scholars recommend the tactic of reading laterally when coming across a new stream of information. This practice encourages that, when encountering an unfamiliar webpage or source, readers open new tabs to first investigate the credibility of that source (Caulfield, 2017). By learning more about the source's history and background, we can obtain more context and determine whether the information provided by a source is reliable.
When learning about an unfamiliar source or author, The News Literacy Project suggests some questions to consider:
To learn more about lateral reading and see examples, check out the video below developed by the University of Louisville.
The infographic below was developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, which outlines steps to take to recognize and avoid falling for "fake news" tactics.
The infographic is published under Creative Commons License.
Mike Caulfield, Director of Blended and Networked Learning at Washington State University Vancouver, developed a blog post on using the SIFT method to evaluate information. He notes that the goal of this method is to help in finding true information amidst fictitious statements, as well as to redirect student attention to more applicable and reputable information sources. This model is as follows:
Stop |
Ask yourself if you know the website or source of this information. Does the source or website have a reputation? Don't read or share it until you learn the source is reputable. Remember your intention in fact-checking. If you want to pursue research on this topic, it's best to be thorough. If your intent is reposting or sharing an interesting story, surface-level investigation may be acceptable. |
Investigate the Source |
It's important to know what you're reading before you read it - especially if the author clearly has some stake or bias that relates to the document's topic. Where is the media from? Is it worth your time? If so, is it trustworthy? |
Find Better Coverage |
If the information doesn't pass your investigation, and you're looking to educate yourself on the topic using other media, seek out trustworthy information to compare to. We aren't invested in a particular article, necessarily, but by the claim being made in that article. How does its claim compare to general consensus? |
Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to Original Context |
Information taken out of context can be harmful, and may elicit a knee-jerk reaction depending on the topic of that information. This doesn't apply to just written information, but for audio and visual information, as well. If we see a video depicting one thing, the context of what happened before and after filming helps frame the video's events. Seek to recontextualize the information - what is the author's expertise? Do they have an agenda? What was happening in the world at the time of this piece? By establishing context, we may have a better understanding of the information's validity and intent that could have been removed by taking it out of context. |
Rachel Radom developed an alternative misinformation recognition model requiring examination of the 5 W's. Learn about them in the table below.
What |
What is the nature of the source? What is the source's format? |
Fact-based piece vs. Opinion piece? Article, blog post, book, column, conference materials, editorial, press release, report, pre-print, review, website, etc. |
Who |
Who wrote the document? Is this author a credible source on the document's topic? Do they have the necessary qualifications to speak on the subject? |
Research the author's credibility, background, and expertise using tools like Google, Wikipedia, and author websites (if appllicable). When investigating the author, link the specific sites you visited to reach the conclusion that the author is credible! |
Why |
What was the author's purpose in creating this material? What sort of language does the author use? What is the author's point of view? |
Was this written for entertainment? To convince readers of something? To inform them? To solicit or sell a product? To criticize another's work? Formal language vs. conversational language Objective vs. subjective source: is it opinionated? Are there facts to back up claims? |
When |
When was the document published? When did events mentioned in the document occur? What was happening in the world at the time of publication? |
The context of time and place can significantly impact a document's reception. Think to resources being created now, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, when compared to sources of information made pre-pandemic. Current events help bring context to an article. |
Where |
Where did this information come from? What type of publication is this source? Is the source organization highly regarded (recipient of awards, distinguished in any field)? What is the intended audience? Can you contact the source organization to gain more information? |
Name the organization where this information was published. Was this published in a blog? An academic journal? A magazine? A newspaper? A website? If published online, what is the site domain (.com, .org, .gov, .edu, .net)? If the publishing organization has any distinctions or awards, find and list them! Is the publication intended for scholars in an academic discipline? For an educated audience in a specific field (e.g. trade or business)? Or is it meant for the general public? List the contact information of the organization and author, if any. |
How |
How did the author use their information? How did the author reach conclusions? What stylistic elements make up the source? |
Are references cited in a scholarly manner, or a popular style? Are references listed at all? Was information gathered through data collection? Were participants surveyed or interviewed? How was bias accounted for in collection of data/information? What sorts of fonts, graphics, data visualizations, and methods were used in the resource? Is there an abstract or summary? A bibliography? |
The CRAAP Test was created by Sarah Blakeslee, of the University of California at Chico's Meriam Library.
You can use the CRAAP Test to properly assess how accurate and reliable a resource is - whether it is a scholarly article or an article shared on Facebook. Each component offers insight on how to evaluate the resource by examining:
Currency |
|
What is the date of publication? Does the source use recent information? Are the references and/or links current? Does currency matter for this topic? Why or why not? |
|||
Relevance |
|
What aspect of your research question(s) does this source answer? Is the intended audience appropriate for academic research? Does this source provide a new perspective or piece of information? Is this source too technical or too general? |
|||
|
|
What credentials related to the topic at hand does the author have? Does the author have any relevant affiliations with a respected university or organization? What can you find about the author online? Has the author published on this subject before? Is the publication reputable? |
|||
Accuracy |
|
Does the source contain any false information or errors? Does the source use reputable sources to support the claims made? Has the source gone through peer review? Are any research methods used well-designed and are conclusions from the research supported by the evidence? Does this source align with other sources that discuss this topic? Does the information seem complete, or are facts missing? |
|||
Purpose |
|
Is this information clearly biased in one way or another? Why did the author or creator decide to share this information? Does this source present multiple points of view on the topic? Is the language used meant to evoke a strong, emotional response? |
