Who created the source? Can you identify an author or organization? Does the author have credentials or advanced degrees in the subject they're writing about? Can you Google their name to find out more about them?
What exactly is being said? What are the main claims, and what evidence/support is given? Is the information supported with references? Can its accuracy be verified with additional sources?
When was the information created? Is it outdated or no longer relevant? Are you researching a topic where more current information is essential such as technology or medicine?
Where was the information published? In an academic source such a scholarly journal, or a popular source like a magazine or newspaper? What do you know about the website or publisher, and can you Google it to find out more?
Why was the information created, or what is the author's main purpose? Is it to inform, to persuade, to entertain, or something else? Are there any biases that come into play with the intended purpose?
SIFT is a series of steps to take when evaluating the reliability of web sites and their claims. It is based on an approach used by professional fact-checkers, and was developed by Mike Caulfield from Washington State University.
Each letter in SIFT stands for one of the steps:
When you see a web site that you are considering using or sharing, stop and ask yourself:
Don't use the source until you have found out more about its content, its creator, and its publisher.
Watch the video below, which highlights the importance of verifying your sources, and then proceed to the next step (Investigate).
The quality of your research is determined by the sources you use. Investigate a source by leaving that web page and looking for information about the source elsewhere. Check several different places before deciding if the source is reliable.
Watch the short video [2:44] below to learn about some of the best ways to investigate a source. Proceed to the next step: Find Better Coverage.
Oftentimes the source of information you come across is not important, even if the claim itself is. What that means is, we can try and find the information we're looking at in other sources. This helps to both verify whether the information is true and to find a better, or more trusted, source of coverage.
"Trusted coverage" can mean:
These can be determined through various online tools, such as the Media Bias Chart or the resources located in the Fact Checking Websites box on the Fake News -- Checking Sources page.
As you work through SIFT more, you can build up a list of trusted sources that can become your "go-to," saving you even more time in searching.
Many times the information we encounter is stripped of its context, which can distort its meaning. It's important to trace claims, quotes, and media back to their original source so that you can understand the context and ensure the information is being presented accurately.
The article is published on a .edu website, indicating that it comes from a reputable higher education institution. The audience could be students, faculty, or anyone in the university community. There is an author name, but it is a username, john963. If you click on the username, it shows other articles written by john963, but no information about who john963 is or what his level of expertise is. Even though it's published on a .edu website, the article is a blog post, which can usually be written by anyone for any purpose. In this case, the obvious purpose is to explain the benefits of a plant-based diet -- but why the author wants to do this (e.g. to educate or to persuade) is not totally clear. The article links to several references, which indicates that the author is attempting to back up their claims with other sources. However, most of the linked references are .com websites or other blog posts, meaning that they may not be the most credible references.
Conclusion: We would likely not use this article in a research paper, because we don't know who the author is, the purpose is unclear, and the references are weak.
*This news quality chart, created by patent lawyer Vanessa Otero, reveals that all major media outlets exhibit some level of bias. Depending on their chart location, they may present a more liberal or conservative view of a news story.
