1. No category

How to Evaluate the Credibility of a Source - wikiHow
http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Evaluate-the-Credibili...
the how to manual that you can edit
How to Evaluate the Credibility of a Source
We are constantly surrounded by information, and it isn't always easy
to know which sources to trust. Being able to evaluate the credibility of
information is an important skill used in school, work, and day-to-day
life. With so much advertising, controversy, and blogging going on,
how do you sift through the chaff and cut to the chase?
Steps
1 of 4
edit
1
Think about how reliable you need the information to be. Everyone has different
standards for credibility, and often this depends on how the information is going to be applied.
If you're writing an academic paper in a university setting, for example, you need to be
especially strict about sources. If you're looking for information on how to unclog your toilet, a
comprehensive Internet search might suffice. If your project falls somewhere in the middle,
such as if you're making a presentation at work or creating a website, it's important to evaluate
sources and make a judgment call as to whether you should include the information and if so,
how it should be presented.
2
Consider the medium with which you are working. Generally, the
more that is invested into the creation and publishing of the material,
the more likely you are to find reliable information. For example,
printed material has a higher cost of production than an Internet blog,
which anyone can publish for free. A peer-reviewed journal is
considered a reliable source because each article must undergo a
rigorous review process, with many professional reviewers involved.
Peer-review does not necessarily indicate that the other field expert
reviewers are in agreement with the conclusions of the original writer. Peer-reviewers examine
accuracy of factual information, rigor of experimental process, and respond with questions and
critique of any conclusion made. They may disagree with the writer in question, but they agree
that the foundation of the article is based on top-notch thinking in the field.
3
This isn't to say that you should completely avoid Internet sources (a blog published by
a distinguished scientist commenting on a study could be useful) nor should you
immediately trust a well-researched publication (material sponsored by large
corporations, for example, can be highly biased). Take everything with a grain of salt.
4
Research the author. A source is more credible if written by someone with a degree or other
credentials in the subject of interest. If no author or organization is named, the source will not
be viewed as very credible. However, if the author is presenting original work, evaluate the
2/17/11 7:46 AM
How to Evaluate the Credibility of a Source - wikiHow
http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Evaluate-the-Credibili...
merit of the ideas-- not the credentials. Credentials have never guaranteed innovation and the
history of science tells us that the big advances in sciences tend to come from outsiders, not
the establishment. Some questions that you should ask about the author are:[1]
Where does the author work? Is there a conflict of interest? Is he a trail-blazer or a
hired-gun? Is he a self-starting innovator or a protector of the status quo?
If the author is affiliated with a reputable institution or organization, what are its values and
goals? Do they benefit financially by promoting a particular view?
What is his or her educational background? What is their unique, non-formal or practical
experience that would make them have new ideas worth considering? Original ideas are
never taught in school. Researchers have to innovate new ideas on their own for
knowledge to progress. If a writer simply cites what he reads, he probably isn't the leader
in the field. Leaders innovate brave new ideas or offer stunning and fresh interpretations of
old material. These are the leaders. Rehashing old stuff is neither interesting nor
leadership. Slavish respect for old ideas can even be dangerous by perpetuating scientific
dead-ends. However, just because it is new, doesn't mean it is worthwhile either. Look at
the argument of the innovation carefully. Again, evaluate the merit of the ideas-- never
credentials. Because a researcher is from a top university doesn't automatically mean all
of their work has merit. People make mistakes all the time. Statistically, there are more
scientists outside of, let's say, Harvard; and thus there is more likely to be innovation
outside of Harvard than inside. The ideas of the work is what really counts-- not
credentials. Credentials are only worth noting to indicate bias or if a researcher is more
likely to be rehashing the view of their institution. Innovation can come from anywhere. And
if they are right-- that is the big story.
What other works has the author published?
What experience does the author have? Is he/she an innovator or a follower and promoter
of the status quo?
Has this author been cited as a source by other scholars or experts in the field?
2 of 4
5
Check the date. Find out when the source was published or revised. In some subject areas,
such as the sciences, having current sources is essential; but in other fields, like the
humanities, including older material is critical.[1] It's also possible that you're looking at an
older version of the source, and an updated one has since been published. Check with a
scholarly database for academic sources (or an online bookstore for popular sources) to see if
a more recent version is available. If so, not only should you find it, but you can also feel more
confident about the source--the more printings or editions, the more reliable the information.[1]
6
Investigate the publisher. If the publisher is a university press, the source is likely to be
scholarly.[1]
7
Determine the intended audience. Scan the preface, table of contents, index, abstract, and
the first few paragraphs of the article or of a few chapters. Is the tone, depth, and breadth
appropriate for your project?[2] Using a source that is too specialized for your needs may lead
you to misinterpret the information given, which is just as hurtful to your own credibility as
using an unreliable source.
2/17/11 7:46 AM
How to Evaluate the Credibility of a Source - wikiHow
http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Evaluate-the-Credibili...
8
Check the reviews. Find reviews for the source. In the US, you can check Book Review
Index, Book Review Digest, Periodical Abstracts. If the book is aimed at a layperson, check
reviews online and see how and why others criticized the source. If there is significant
controversy surrounding the validity of the source, you may wish to avoid using it, or examine
it further with a skeptical eye.
9
Evaluate the source's sources. Citing other reliable sources is a sign of credibility. It is,
however, sometimes necessary to verify that the other sources also show a pattern of
credibility and are used in context. If you are looking for new ideas and innovation, research
citations will be fewer, if at all, because truly original work cannot be cited.
10
Identify bias. If the source's author is known to be emotionally or financially connected with
the subject, be aware that the source may not fairly represent all views. Sometimes research
is necessary to determine relationships that indicate the possibility of bias.
Be conscious of wording that indicates judgment. Conclusions that describe something as
"bad or good" or "right or wrong" should be examined. It is more appropriate to compare
something to an objective standard than to label it with words that represent abstract
concepts. Take for example, "...these and other despicable acts..." vs. "...these and other
illegal acts...". The latter describes the acts in terms of the law (an objective source,
somewhat) whereas the first example judges the actions according to the author's own
belief of what is a despicable act.
11
Evaluate Consistency. Sources that apply different standards to those who agree and
disagree with them are suspect. If your source praises one politician for "changing to meet the
needs of his constituency", but then criticizes an opposing politician for "changing his position
with opinion polls", it is likely that the source is biased.
12
Investigate the financial or funding sources for sponsored research. Determine the
sources of funding for the study conducted to get an idea of the potential influences on the
study. Various sources of funding can sway the information presented or the way a study is
conducted in order to align with their own agendas.
Tips
edit
The more radical the ideas presented in the source (in comparison to other sources on the
same subject) the more carefully you should scrutinize it.[1] Don't dismiss it completely; Gregor
Mendel's work was cited only three times, criticized, and ignored for 35 years before his
discoveries in genetics were recognized in the field of science.[3]
If a source doesn't pass the above guidelines, it doesn't mean that the information contained
within is false. It just means that it doesn't carry as much weight in compelling someone to
believe it.
Beware of using Wikipedia as a source for academic or journalistic writing. While a scientific
3 of 4
2/17/11 7:46 AM
How to Evaluate the Credibility of a Source - wikiHow
http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Evaluate-the-Credibili...
study showed that Wikipedia is as accurate as professionally generated enclyclopedias[4], it is
generally considered not credible enough for use in articles where accuracy is of extreme
importance, since anyone can edit nearly any of the entries.
Related wikiHows
edit
How to Cite Sources
How to Reference Sources on wikiHow
How to Cite a Wikipedia Article in MLA Format
How to Be a Skeptic
Sources and Citations
edit
http://libweb.uoregon.edu/guides/findarticles/credibility.html
http://iws.ohiolink.edu/~sg-ysu/eval.html
1.
2.
3.
4.
4 of 4
↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm
↑ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_evalsource3.html
↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel
↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
2/17/11 7:46 AM