Computer Information: Evaluating Sources

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.

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?

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?

Find out more about the SMELL Test.

Pro:

• Current information
• Specialized articles related to a particular discipline or profession (including context and analysis)

Con:

• Sources not always cited
• Articles vary between short and easy to lengthy and highly specific

Intended Audience: Professional organizations or professionals/scholars with similar interests

What For / Consider: Has characteristics in common with both popular magazines and scholarly journals

Pro:

• More space than newspapers, magazines, or journals results in greater depth of information
• Often include tables of contents and indexes for easy navigation and discovery
• Often include footnotes, endnotes, and/or bibliographies
• Most books undergo some sort of editorial process (usually writer - editor)

Con:

• Take more time to read than other sources
• Can take months or even years to publish
• Many books do not undergo peer review
• Rise in self-publishing means more unedited or poorly edited books reach publication

Intended Audience: Varies (general audience through scholars)

What For / Consider: Information may be dated due to the time it takes to publish a book.

Pro:

• More space than newspapers = longer articles, more depth
• Published faster than books
• Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people: reporter to editor to copy editor
• Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

• Less space than books
• Publish articles less frequently than websites or newspapers; information can be outdated by press time
• Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
• Articles are not peer-reviewed
• Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience or those with a specific, recreational interest (e.g. sports, fashion, science, etc.)

What For / Consider: Potential editorial bias

Pro:

• Published more frequently than magazines, journals, or books
• Articles undergo an editorial process involving many people -- reporter to editor to copy editor
• Authority is clear for most articles

Con:

• Space limitations = shorter articles, less detail
• Publish articles less frequently than websites; information can be outdated by press time
• Reporters often aren’t experts and are writing for general audiences, not experts
• Articles are not peer-reviewed
• Rely on advertising and subscription revenue

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Contains both fact-based reporting and editorial content (opinions). Opinions may be biased.

Pro:

• Easy to find using Google
• Often have higher editorial and design standards than personal websites
• Often managed by professional writers and designers
• Government websites are designed to inform citizens

Con:

• Commercial interests may come first
• Articles are written for general audiences
• Bylines often missing and works rarely cited

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Governmental and educational websites have higher credibility than commercial websites

Pro:

• Articles easy to find using the site’s search field or Google
• Articles about current events updated frequently
• Best articles are edited by a crowd of interested and informed writers
• Useful for background information

Con:

• Editorial standards set by community; minimal oversight from Wikipedia staff
• Articles on obscure topics can go untouched for months
• Non-experts have just as much editorial control as experts
• Worst articles are poorly written and poorly sourced
• Instructors do not allow use as a source

Intended Audience: General audience

What For / Consider: Use the reference list to find other sources that can used

Pro:

• Easy to find through Google
• Might be updated quickly and frequently
• Direct access to person / author
• Access to scholarly work in progress
• Expansion of published work

Con:

• No editorial standards or oversight = author can express opinions, biases, and incorrect information with few consequences
• May not include information about the author, date of publication, or sources cited (if any)
• Vary widely in quality and reliability

Intended Audience: General audience through scholars depending on the source

What For / Consider: High potential for bias. Usually informal.