Evaluating sources is a fundamental skill in academic research, ensuring that the information you use is appropriate, credible, and relevant to your assignments. This process involves critically examining various aspects of a source within the context of your specific needs. Remember that you already possess everyday evaluation skills that can be adapted to academic contexts.

Why Evaluate Sources?

The primary reason for evaluating sources is to determine their suitability and trustworthiness for your research. This involves considering several factors:

Context of the Assignment: The requirements and expectations of your assignment or instructor heavily influence what types of sources are acceptable and valuable.
Information Needs: The specific information you are seeking will dictate the kind of source that is most appropriate.
Currency of Information: In many fields, especially science and technology, up-to-date information is crucial.
Credibility and Reliability: You need to ensure that the information you use comes from trustworthy and reliable sources.

Evaluating Sources Using the SIFT Framework

The SIFT framework provides a structured approach to evaluating sources. Each letter represents a key aspect to consider:

Infographic showing the steps of SIFT: Stop, investigate the source, find trusted coverage, trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

The SIFT method was created by Mike Caulfield. All SIFT information on this page is adapted from his materials with a CC BY 4.0 license.

Determining if resources are credible is challenging. Use the SIFT method to help you analyze information, especially news or other online media.

Remember, you can always Ask a Librarian for help with evaluating information.

The SIFT Method

Stop

Before you believe or share something, pause for a moment. Ask yourself if you know the source and whether it's trustworthy. If you're getting lost in fact-checking, stop again and refocus on what you really need to know.

Investigate the Source

Find out who created the content before you trust it. A Nobel-winning economist and a dairy industry ad might both talk about milk, but their perspectives will be different. Knowing the source's expertise and agenda helps you decide how much to trust what they say.

Ask questions like:

Who made this? Look for the author, publisher, organization, or website responsible for the information.
What is their expertise or mission? Try to determine their background, credentials, and stated goals.
What is the website's "About Us" page? This can often provide valuable information about the source's purpose and affiliations.
Are there any potential biases or agendas? Consider the source's funding, affiliations, and stated viewpoints.

Find Better Coverage

Don't rely on just one source—see what other trusted sources say about the claim. If a shocking news story pops up, check if reliable outlets are reporting it too. Looking at multiple sources helps you understand if something is true, debated, or completely made up.

Cross-reference the information you find with reputable news outlets, academic institutions, fact-checking websites, or other sources known for their accuracy and objectivity.

What do other reliable sources say about this information or the source itself?
Are there consistent reports or analyses across multiple credible platforms?
Be wary of information that appears only on a single, unknown, or biased website.

Trace Back to the Original

Context matters! A video, quote, or statistic can be misleading if it's taken out of context. Go back to the original source to see the full picture and make sure you're getting the real story. Don't take information at face value. If a source makes a claim, uses a quote, or presents media (images, videos), try to find the original source of that information.

Where did this claim or quote originate?
Is the media presented in its original form and context, or has it been altered or manipulated?
Following the links and citations provided can help you trace information back to its primary source.

Why These Steps Matter

The SIFT framework emphasizes a more active and lateral reading approach to evaluation, encouraging you to quickly investigate the source and corroborate information before deeply engaging with the content itself. This can save time and help you identify unreliable or biased sources more efficiently.

Quick Guide:

When you encounter any kind of source, consider the following:

Authority: Who is the author? What is their point of view?
Purpose: Why was the source created? Who is the intended audience?
Publication & format: Where was it published? In what medium?
Relevance: How is it relevant to your research? What is its scope?
Date of publication: When was it written? Has it been updated?
Documentation: Did they cite their sources? Who did they cite?

Special Considerations: Wikipedia and "Fake News"

Evaluating Wikipedia

While Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for gaining a general overview of a topic, identifying keywords, and finding links to other sources, it is generally not considered a citable source in academic work due to its open editing model. A few things to consider:

Lack of Consistent Expertise: Content is not always written or reviewed by subject experts.
Rapidly Changing Content: Information can be altered quickly, especially on controversial topics.
Expectation of Deeper Research: Academic work requires going beyond readily available sources like Wikipedia.

Use Wikipedia strategically for initial exploration but always rely on and cite credible academic sources for your assignments.

Identifying "Fake News"

Evaluating news sources requires particular attention. Here is a quick list of things to look out for:

Lack of Transparency: Unclear or missing information about the source's creators or funding.
Sensational or Emotionally Charged Language: Designed to provoke a strong reaction without critical thought.
Lack of Supporting Evidence or Links to Credible Sources: Claims made without proper backing.
Inconsistencies or Errors: Contradictory information or factual mistakes.
Information That Appears Only on Untrustworthy Websites: Absence of corroboration from reputable news outlets.

We’ll take a closer look at “fake news” in the next page of this module.

A Comprehensive List of Considerations for Evaluating Information:

When you encounter any kind of source, consider the following:

Authority

Who is the author?
What else has the author written?
In which communities and contexts does the author have expertise?
Does the author represent a particular set of world views?
Do they represent specific gender, sexual, racial, political, social, and/or cultural orientations?
Do they privilege some sources of authority over others?
Do they have a formal role in a particular institution (e.g., a professor at Harvard, or a staff writer for the New York Times)?

Purpose

Why was this source created?
Does it have an economic value for the author or publisher?
Is it an educational resource? Persuasive?
What (research) questions does it attempt to answer?
Does it strive to be objective?
Does it fill any other personal, professional, or societal needs?
Who is the intended audience?
Is it for scholars?
Is it for a general audience?

Publication and Format

Where was it published?
Was it published in a scholarly publication, such as an academic journal?
Who was the publisher? Was it a university press? Was it formally peer-reviewed?
Does the publication have a particular editorial position?
Is the publication sponsored by any companies or organizations? Do they have biases?
Were there any apparent barriers to publication?
Was it self-published? Were there outside editors or reviewers?
Where, geographically, was it originally published, and in what language?
In what medium?
Was it published online or in print? Both?
What does the medium tell you about the intended audience?
What does the medium tell you about the purpose of the piece?

Relevance

How is it relevant to your research?
Does it analyze the primary sources that you're researching?
Does it cover the authors or individuals that you're researching, but different primary texts?
Can you apply the authors' frameworks of analysis to your own research?
What is the scope of coverage?
Is it a general overview or an in-depth analysis?
Does the scope match your own information needs?
Is the time period and geographic region relevant to your research?

Date of Publication

When was the source first published?
What version or edition of the source are you consulting?
Are there differences in editions, such as new introductions or footnotes?
If the publication is online, when was it last updated?
What has changed in your field of study since the publication date? Could the information be outdated?
Are there any published reviews, responses, or rebuttals?

Documentation

Did they cite their sources?
If not, do you have any other means to verify the reliability of their claims?
Who do they cite?
Is the author affiliated with any of the authors they're citing?
Are the cited authors part of a particular academic movement or school of thought?
Look closely at the quotations and paraphrases from other sources:
- Did they appropriately represent the context of their cited sources?
- Did they ignore any important elements from their cited sources?
- Are they cherry-picking facts to support their own arguments?
- Did they appropriately cite ideas that were not their own?

Reference for the questions above for evaluating resources

This information is courtesy of the UC Berkeley Libraries and the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License.