Page Navigation

(I)nvestigate the source

Book cover showing a man with his arms around a young boy and a woman. The title is "Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines - the Truth Behind a Tragedy" by Andrew J. Wakefield, Foreword by Jenny McCarthy. — You find this book which aligns with the argument you want to make on your assignment. (Image attributed to Andrew Wakefield)

Imagine your assignment is to research the question, "In what way has the prevalence of social media influenced the conversation about vaccinations?"

During your search, you find a book by Andrew Wakefield (2010) about autism and vaccines.

The book supports the argument you want to make in your assignment.

But, is the information real or bull💩?

Even if your sources fit your project's topic well, the (i)nvestigate part of SIFT requires you to evaluate the source's quality and context. Here are some points to consider:

Reputation/authority
Purpose
Bias

You must decide whether each source is worth using. If a source you encounter is low quality or you can't verify its reliability, your best strategy is to not use it and move on to other viable sources.

Wakefield, A.J. (2010). Callous disregard: Autism and vaccines — the truth behind a tragedy. Skyhourse.

Try it! Are you smarter than a Ph.D. historian?

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Pediatricians look like credible sites.

Determine which site has trustworthy information.

Afterward, read the sections below, then use the Wikipedia trick to determine which site is credible.

What did you find out?
How long did it take you to determine which site was credible?

The homepages from the websites in the study you learned about at the beginning of the module
American Academy of Pediatrics	American College of Pediatrics

Don't judge a book (or website) by its cover

The reason most of those Stanford undergrads and half of those Ph.D. historians chose the untrustworthy website is because they fell for the looks (Wineburg & McGrew, 2017). Intentionally misleading websites may appear sleek and well-supported because their creators are heavily invested in making their work look "reputable." These sites may even use a .org or .edu domain!

On the other hand, many academic websites appear outdated or poorly designed because the creator's expertise lies in content rather than web design. The information, however, is trustworthy.

Don't make assumptions based on the domain

Domains like .edu, .com, and .org can offer hints for where a website's information came from, but the domain itself does not guarantee its content is accurate, up-to-date, thorough, or unbiased. Here's what the domains tell you:

.edu websites are hosted by colleges and other educational institutions, but that doesn't automatically make their information scholarly or accurate. For example, personal home pages for students and staff may have a .edu domain if the university hosts them.
.gov websites are hosted by government agencies. Most of the time, this is where you can go for statistical information like census data, or the Occupational Outlook Handbook for information about careers.
.com, .org, .net are domains that anyone can purchase. .org websites are often assumed to represent non-profit organizations, but any group or individual can purchase a .org domain. But even non-profit organizations may present inaccurate information. You can't assume that these are reliable sources.

Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. (Report No. 2017-A1). Stanford History Education Group http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048994

Not sure? Use the Wikipedia trick

How did fact-checkers take mere minutes to determine a website's credibility? They used a trick with Wikipedia.

When you come across an information source, adding the word "Wikipedia" at the end of a URL in the address can help you learn more about that site's credibility.*

*HOWEVER, there are many sites that do not have a Wikipedia page for many different reasons. If you can't use the Wikipedia trick, keep reading. You'll have other strategies to evaluate these sites.

Let's look at two examples:

1. NVIC.org

The National Vaccine and Information Center website looks credible on the surface:

National vaccine information center homepage

The site looks very professional and modern. But, is the information credible?

Instead of relying on your first impressions, (s)top and (i)nvestigate the source by using Wikipedia to look up the organization.

Click on this bar to see what happens when you use the Wikipedia trick:

GIF showing how to use the Wikipedia trick by adding the word "Wikipedia" after the site address when searching — Click image to enlarge

❶ Add the word Wikipedia next to the site address in the address field to search the organization.

❷ Click the Wikipedia site about the organization.

❸Read what it says.

According to Wikipedia, the National Vaccine Information Center is an "organization that has been widely criticized as a leading source of fearmongering and misinformation about vaccines."

Based on the questionable and biased nature of this website, it is best to find another, more credible source for your information.

National Vaccine Information Center. (2023, November 10). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center

2. thedailystar.net

Here is the front page of The Daily Star:

The Daily Star homepage

The page isn't fancy. In fact, it's very basic, and one could even argue that it looks old, which implies that this might be a hoax site.

Before jumping to conclusions, however, (s)top and (i)nvestigate the source by looking it up on Wikipedia.

Click on this bar to see what happens when you use the Wikipedia trick:

❶ Add the word Wikipedia next to the site address in the address field to search the organization.

❷ Click the Wikipedia site about the organization.

❸ Read what it says.

According to Wikipedia, the Daily Star is a newspaper that "has been described as having a 'reputation for journalistic integrity and liberal and progressive views.'" It is also the "largest circulating English-language newspaper in the country."

The Daily Star is a reliable newspaper source for information. Compared to the National Vaccine Information Center, it is much more trustworthy, even though it doesn't look as professional.

The Daily Star (Bangladesh). (2024, May 30). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Star_(Bangladesh)

Key takeaways

The I in SIFT stands for (i)nvestigate. One way to (i)nvestigate the source is by using the Wikipedia trick.

Remember that you can't judge a book by its cover, or a website by its domain.

Try it! Are you smarter than a Ph.D. historian?

Don't judge a book (or website) by its cover

Don't make assumptions based on the domain

Not sure? Use the Wikipedia trick

1. NVIC.org

Click on this bar to see what happens when you use the Wikipedia trick:

Wikipedia on the National Vaccine Information Center

2. thedailystar.net

Click on this bar to see what happens when you use the Wikipedia trick:

Wikipedia on the Daily Star

Key takeaways