THE SHORT ANSWER
Evaluate a source by asking who produced it, how close they are to the underlying evidence, what expertise and incentives matter, whether methods and citations are transparent, how current it is, and whether independent sources corroborate the specific claim.
Credibility has several dimensions
| Dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Proximity | Is this the original record, research or direct witness? |
| Expertise | Is the relevant competence visible? |
| Incentives | What outcome or audience may shape the presentation? |
| Transparency | Can methods, data and corrections be inspected? |
| Independence | Are apparently separate sources relying on one origin? |
| Recency | Is the information current enough for this claim? |
| Corroboration | What do credible independent sources report? |
Leave the page before trusting the page
Digital Inquiry Group teaches lateral reading: investigate what other sources say about an unfamiliar source instead of judging only its design, domain name or self-description. Presentation can support usability; it cannot establish reliability.
Trace quotations and numbers to their original context. Several articles repeating one press release are not independent confirmation.
Evidence & context: Digital Inquiry Group
Credible does not mean infallible
An expert can work outside their expertise, a primary source can be incomplete, and an official source can later correct a figure. A weak source can also repeat a true fact. Judge the support for the claim rather than converting the source into a universal trusted-or-untrusted label.
Match verification effort to consequence
- Identify the consequential claim.
- Find the closest available primary source.
- Investigate the source laterally.
- Check the passage and context.
- Seek independent corroboration.
- Record supported, contradicted or unresolved.
Sources & further reading
- Civic Online Reasoning
Digital Inquiry Group. Source-evaluation teaching resources, including lateral reading: investigating a source beyond its own website.
- Reproducibility and Replicability in Science
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A consensus report on evidence, uncertainty, transparency, reproducibility and replication. Scientific standards need proportionate adaptation outside research settings.
Examples and exercises are illustrative unless attributed to a source. No independent expert review is claimed.
A correction, a counterexample or an experience worth sharing?
Join the conversation ↗