Who is telling you this, and why?
"Scientists discover chocolate cures cancer" — before believing it, ask who wrote it, what kind of piece it is, when it appeared, where it was published and what it wants from you. Five questions, thirty seconds, and most bad sources fall over.
You read something online: "Scientists discover chocolate cures cancer!" Should you believe it? WHO said it? WHEN? WHERE was it published? Not all sources are equal - and learning to evaluate them is crucial in our information-overloaded world!
WHO: Author credentials? Expert in this field?
WHAT: Type of source? News, opinion, satire, ad?
WHEN: Recent or outdated?
WHERE: Published where? Reputable outlet?
WHY: Purpose? Inform, persuade, sell, entertain?
TRUSTWORTHY sources typically:
• Cite their sources (footnotes, links, references)
• Have named, qualified authors
• Separate news from opinion clearly
• Correct errors transparently
• Use measured language (not sensational)
• Published by established organizations
BE SKEPTICAL when you see:
• No author listed (or author has no credentials)
• Sensational headlines ("SHOCKING!", "You won't believe...")
• No dates or citations
• Many ads or sponsored content
• URL designed to LOOK like reputable site (ABCnews.com.co)
• Only one source making this claim
DON'T just read the article! LATERAL READING = leave the site and search for:
(1) Who is the author?
(2) What do other sources say about this claim?
(3) What's the original source?
Fact-checkers do this constantly!
Evaluating sources means checking WHO said it, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY before believing!
The CRAAP Test:
• Currency: Is it up-to-date?
• Relevance: Does it answer your question?
• Authority: Who's the author? Qualified?
• Accuracy: Can you verify it? Sources cited?
• Purpose: Inform, persuade, sell, or entertain?
Quick checks:
1. About page: Who runs this site?
2. Contact info: Can you reach them?
3. Other coverage: Do reliable sources report this?
4. Original source: Is this secondhand? Find the original!
5. Reverse image search: For photos - are they real/recent?
Hierarchy of reliability:
MOST reliable: Peer-reviewed research, expert consensus, primary sources
MODERATE: Established news organizations, verified reports
LEAST reliable: Social media posts, unknown websites, viral content
Golden rule: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!
🌱 A Small Everyday Story
"Mom, this article says video games make you smarter!"
"Who wrote it?"
"Um... I don't know."
"Where's it from?"
"...A gaming website?"
"Hmm. Maybe they want you to buy games? Let's check what researchers say."
🧠 Thinking habits this builds:
🌿 Behaviors you may notice (and reinforce):
How to reinforce: "Great question! You're checking the source before believing - that's exactly what smart readers do."
🔄 When ideas are still forming:
Children might think anything "official looking" is true. Help them see that websites can be designed to look credible while being unreliable.
Helpful response: "A fancy website doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Let's look at WHO is behind it."
🔬 If you want to go deeper:
Key concepts (for adults): Source evaluation, CRAAP test, lateral reading, primary vs secondary sources, credibility markers.