How do you know if a source is trustworthy?
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WHEN: Recent or outdated?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!
🤔 Which thinking lens(es) did you use?
Select all the lenses you used:
🌱 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."
See more guidance →
🧠 Thinking habits this builds:
- Questioning sources before believing
- Looking for author credentials
- Checking multiple sources
- Recognizing biased or unreliable sources
🌿 Behaviors you may notice (and reinforce):
- Asking "Who said this?"
- Checking dates on articles
- Looking for citations
- Cross-referencing claims
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:
- Compare coverage of the same story across different sources
- Find a claim and trace it back to its original source
- Explore the CRAAP test together
Key concepts (for adults): Source evaluation, CRAAP test, lateral reading, primary vs secondary sources, credibility markers.