Start here to get when you don’t know much about the topic to find basic information and get context.
These sources, which might be quickly created explainer about something happening now or detailed overviews created at a distance from the event, will help you find angles, search terms and approaches to your topic. Find background in:
These sources are created during or immediately after the event - they are contemporaneous.
Use current events to help you clarify for your audience why they should care about your topic. Find current events in:
Data is the raw information used to create statistics. Statistics are based on analysis of the data. While data will trickle out as events unfold, the statistics created from it improve with more data points.
Data and statistics can help you demonstrate how your topic impacts and affects others. Find data and statistics in:
Most everyone has opinions that tell you what they think or feel. Opinions can begin during the event and may continue for a long time after an event. These sources can be used to portray lived experience and are easy to find.
Look especially at social media, audio such as podcasts and video, for interviews, comments, and letters in all types of sources, and in both the editorial and opinion sections of news sites.
Analysis takes time and distance from the event's occurrence. Analysis is credible and reliable interpretation of events, data, or research filtered through expertise and/or education. It can be easy to confuse with opinion; anyone can have an opinion about football, but a former professional football player or coach might offer in-depth, expert analysis. Find analysis quickly in:
This information usually takes time, often years, to create. In college classes, research is the platinum level source. Research can be presentations of new information or facts from studies, investigations, interviews, or scholarship done by academics, scientists, scholars, or other researchers.
Find research primarily in scholarly/academic journals or use your own empirical work, such as polls, surveys, and interviews you create and conduct.
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.
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?
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: Scholars, researchers, professionals, and university students in particular field
Watch for: "Predatory" or "pay to publish" online journals
Pro:
Con:
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:
Con:
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:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience or those with a specific, recreational interest (e.g. sports, fashion, science, etc.)
What For / Consider: Potential editorial bias
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Contains both fact-based reporting and editorial content (opinions). Opinions may be biased.
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Governmental and educational websites have higher credibility than commercial websites
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience
What For / Consider: Use the reference list to find other sources that can used
Pro:
Con:
Intended Audience: General audience through scholars depending on the source
What For / Consider: High potential for bias. Usually informal.