{"CACHEDAT":"2026-07-09 23:01:01","SLUG":"information-reliability-source-credibility-afJtUuWXPH","MARKDOWN":"# Source {{sources}}\n\nSource is used in several overlapping ways when evaluating an information item.\n\n* As **information item**:\\nthe information item itself, classified by degree of mediation, such as primary, secondary, or tertiary source, and by source type\n* As **creator or author**:\n\n the person, organisation, account, or system that produced the content\n* As **publisher, host, or information environment**: {{publisher}}\n\n the publication, platform, website, channel, or environment in which the information item appears\n* As **distributor**: {{distributor}}\n\n the person, account, bot, platform, or recommendation system through which the information item reached the user\n* As **cited or referenced source**: \\na source that another information item cites, quotes, links to, or refers to\n\n## Creator / Author {{content-creator_creators_authors}}\n\nThe creator or author is the person, organisation, account, or system that has created an information item. \n\n* They may be identified, pseudonymous, or anonymous. \n* Identifying the creator or author helps evaluate expertise, accountability, perspective, and possible interests behind the information item.\n\n\n:::info\n\"Exclusive: AI writing hasn't overwhelmed the web yet\" () \n\nThis article provides an up-to-date overview of studies that compare human and AI-made content and comment on fear that \"if AI-made content online overwhelms human-created material, large language models could choke on their own exhaust and collapse.\" \n\n:::\n\n## Degree of Mediation {{mediation degree}}\n\nThe degree of mediation does show is how far the information item is from the original material — and therefore how many steps of selection, interpretation, and potential distortion lie in between.\n\n| Degree of Mediation | Epistemic Proximity / Relation to Original Information Item | Examples |\n|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|\n| ### Primary Source {{primary sources}} | Directly presents, documents, analyses, or interprets **original information:** raw data, original events, or firsthand experience | * WHO research report
* Eyewitness account
* Original dataset
* Parliamentary speech |\n| ### Secondary Source {{secondary sources}} | References and reports on, analyses, interprets, comments on, or reframes one or more primary **information items** | * Newspaper article about the WHO report
* Textbook chapter summarising research findings
* Social media post quoting from a scientific study and commenting on the quote |\n| ### Tertiary Source {{tertiary sources}} | References, compiles, or summarises multiple primary and/or secondary information items, typically without presenting new original information | * TikTok video reacting to a tweet that commented on a scientific study
* Wikipedia entry
* Encyclopedia overview |\n\n\n:::warning\nThe degree of mediation does not determine reliability or trustworthiness. \\n→ A primary source can be biased, incomplete, or wrong (e.g., an eyewitness account, a misleading dataset). \\n→ A secondary source can be more reliable than the primary material it reports on (e.g., a fact-checked article correcting a politician's claims). \n\n:::\n\n## Degree of Editorial Review {{editorial review_editor_editors}} \n\nEditorial review is a formal **pre-publication** process in which an editor or an editorial team decides which information items reach the public and checks their content against the publisher's standards:\n\n* **Gatekeeping: Selection & Exclusion:** selecting which information items are published and which are not\n* **Quality Control: Verification:** verifying content, sources, and accuracy (→ source-credibility & information reliability)\n\nRigour varies from informal one-person editing to formal multi-stage review.\n\n\n:::info\nThe editorial process is broader still: editors are often also involved, alongside the author, in creating an item, i.e. selecting information for publication (→ gatekeeping) and framing its content.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::warning\n**Editorial review is not neutral.**\\nA formal process and a rigorous quality check do not preclude bias. \n\nEditorial decisions reflect the motives, interests, and editorial line of the publishing organisation: its mission, ownership, funding, and target audience.\n\nThe same piece can be carefully checked *and* framed in ways that serve the publisher's agenda (→ editorial curation). Quality and bias are not mutually exclusive.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::warning\nThe reliability of an information item depends primarily on the expertise of the creator and the editorial review it received — not on whoever shared it.\n\n* a retweeted article: the account that shared it is not its author → there is a separate author behind the article, whose expertise needs to be checked\n* a bot posting a link: the bot that posted it is not its creator → the linked content has its own creator, whose expertise needs to be checked\n\n:::\n\n#### Peer Review {{peer reviews}}\n\nPeer review is a specialised form of editorial review used in academic and scientific publishing. Before a manuscript is published, it is evaluated by independent experts in the same field (peers), who assess its quality, methodology, originality, and validity. They recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection; the final decision rests with the editor.\n\nCommon forms include \n\n* single-blind (reviewers know the author's identity), \n* double-blind (neither side knows the other's), and \n* open peer review (identities disclosed).\n\n\n:::warning\nPeer review is a quality-control mechanism, not a guarantee of correctness. It can miss errors, fail to detect fraud, or reflect reviewer bias. Passing peer review raises the likelihood of reliability but does not establish it.\n\n:::\n\n#### Print & Broadcast \n\nIn traditional publication contexts, the roles of creator and editor were typically separate: a journalist (content-creator) and a newspaper editorial team (editor).\n\n#### Digital Information Platforms & Channels {{digital information channels_digital information platform_digital information channel}}\n\nIn digital environments, the boundaries shift. The editorial role is often bypassed: anyone with an account can post or share information without editorial review or institutional backing. \n\nAt the same time, source-driven visibility promotion and platform-driven visibility promotion shape visibility in ways that traditional publishers and distribution networks did not.\n\n# Source Types {{source type}}\n\n| **Source Type**
What kind of source is this? | **Authors / Creators**
Who is typically behind it? | **Primary Interest**
What is their main purpose? | **Communicative Intentions**
How do they typically communicate? | **Editorial Review**
How carefully is the information checked before publication? | **Implications for Reliability and Trustworthiness**
How does this affect reliability and trustworthiness? | **Genres**
What formats do information items in this source type typically take? |\n|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| #### **Academic / Educational** | - Universities
- Research institutions
- Schools
- Scholarly publishers | - Knowledge production
- Education | - Informing
- Explaining
- Documenting evidence | Often formally reviewed, though the level of review varies. | Often stronger in evidence use and documentation, but findings may be preliminary, narrowly scoped, or superseded by newer research. | - Journal article
- Textbook
- Lecture recording
- Encyclopedia entry |\n| #### **Commercial / Promotional** | - Companies
- Brands
- Industry associations
- Sponsored creators | - Profit
- Market position
- Reputation | - Promoting
- Selling
- Building brand trust | Usually internally reviewed for brand, legal, or marketing purposes. | Professionally produced and shaped by commercial interests; marketing and information are often blurred. | - Sponsored post
- Brand blog
- Product microsite
- Corporate press release |\n| #### **Individual / Personal** | - Private persons
- Unaffiliated creators
- Personal networks | - Self-expression
- Sharing
- Opinion
- Experience
- … | - Expressing
- Sharing
- Commenting
- Entertaining | Usually not formally reviewed before publication. | Can offer firsthand perspectives, but reliability, expertise, and accountability vary widely. | - Personal blog
- Forum comment
- Private message- Social media post
- Personal video |\n| #### **Journalistic** | - News organisations
- Editorial teams
- Independent journalists | - Public reporting
- Audience reach | - Reporting
- Interpreting
- Investigating
- Commenting | Often editorially reviewed, though standards vary. | Can provide verified and contextualised reporting, but quality varies by outlet, genre, speed, and commercial pressure. | - News article
- Feature
- Opinion piece
- Editorial
- Investigative podcast |\n| #### **Philanthropic / Service-oriented** | - Humanitarian organisations
- Charitable foundations
- Service-oriented NGOs | - Public benefit
- Aid
- Welfare | - Informing
- Supporting
- Coordinating aid
- Raising awareness | Often internally reviewed, though standards vary. | Often mission-driven and grounded in practical experience, but scope, independence, and evidence use vary. | - Aid programme page
- Foundation project report
- Charity newsletter |\n| #### **Political / Advocacy** | - Parties
- Campaigns
- Advocacy groups
- Activists
- Lobbying groups | - Advocacy
- Persuasion
- Mobilisation | - Persuading
- Pressuring
- Agenda-setting
- Mobilising | Usually strategically reviewed to support a position or campaign. | Important for public debate, but often shaped by advocacy, persuasion, or institutional interests. | - Party programme
- Campaign ad
- Manifesto
- Lobbying paper |\n| #### **Professional / Membership-based** | - Professional associations
- Trade unions
- Chambers
- Learned societies | - Member interests
- Professional standards | - Representing
- Standard-setting
- Coordinating
- Informing members | Often internally reviewed for accuracy and consistency. | Often grounded in domain expertise, but perspective may reflect member interests rather than broader public interest. | - Professional guideline
- Member newsletter
- Position paper
- Sector report |\n| #### **Public / Official** | - Governments
- Ministries
- Public authorities
- International organisations | - Public mandate
- Regulation
- Policy | - Announcing
- Regulating
- Legitimising
- Informing the public | Usually formally reviewed and approved before publication. | Often authoritative about official positions and decisions, but may be selective, strategic, or self-presentational. | - Policy document
- Official statement
- FAQ page
- Ministry report |\n\n\n:::info\nGenres are not exclusive to a single source category. A newsletter, for example, can be commercial, philanthropic, or professional. The genre alone is not a sufficient indicator of reliability or trustworthiness.\n\n:::\n\n# Source Credibility & Information Reliability {{reliability_reliable_credibility_credible_expert_experts}}\n\nModern knowledge is so specialised that no individual can verify all claims independently. \n\nWe have to rely on **experts** and on **credible sources**. But this reliance is only as good as our ability to identify who genuinely is an expert and which information is reliable.\n\n## ▶ Lateral Reading\n\nLateral reading is a strategy of evaluating sources and content like a professional. \n\n* **Source Checking**\\nverification of the expertise and reputation of authors and publishers\n* **Fact-Checking**\\nverification of specific claims in the information item\n\nThe initial focus is on questioning the source (who is behind the content), not the content itself. Instead of reading vertically — staying on a website and analysing it from top to bottom — you leave the site quickly, search for the source's name, and check what other trustworthy sites say about it. If the source seems untrustworthy, don't waste your time on it. Find a better source.\n\nThe same lateral approach also works for verifying digital platforms, specific claims, quotes, or statistics within the content: leave the page and search for independent confirmation.\n\n### ☑ Lateral Reading Steps\n\n\n:::success\nDon't try to judge a source by reading it. Leave it. Use the rest of the web to find out what it is.\n\n* **Leave the website.** \n * Open a new tab (Cmd-Click / Ctrl-Click) and search the web for the target name. \n * Use exact search terms — put names in quotation marks. \n * Add specific terms from the checklists below to focus on a particular point (e.g., \"Employment Policies Institute\" + \"funding sources\").\n* **Practice click restraint.** \n * Don't click the first result. \n * Scan snippets and URLs of several results; look for entries on independent reference sites (Wikipedia, SourceWatch, established news outlets).\n* **Corroborate.** \n * On reliable external sites, use the find-on-page shortcut (command+F) to quickly locate names or key terms to verify.\n\n:::\n\n## Source Checking\n\nVerifying whether an author genuinely has expertise in a field is rarely straightforward. The following indicators provide starting points. They are most reliable when cross-checked through lateral reading.\n\n### ☑ Indicators of Author's Expertise & Credentials {{expertise_indicators of author's credentials}} \n\n\n:::success\n**Identifiability**\n\n- [ ] Author's name and professional role\n- [ ] Contact information (e.g. institutional email, professional website)\n- [ ] Verifiable professional profile (e.g. ResearchGate, institutional page, LinkedIn)\n\n**Qualification and Subject Expertise**\n\n- [ ] Educational background relevant to the topic\n- [ ] Professional experience in the topic field\n- [ ] Specialisation in the specific area discussed\n\n**Institutional Backing, Funding, and Bias**\n\n- [ ] Affiliation with an identifiable institution or organisation\n- [ ] Author's position within the institution\n- [ ] Disclosed funding sources and conflicts of interest\n- [ ] Affiliations with groups or organisations holding a specific agenda\n\n**Publication Track Record**\n\n- [ ] Other publications by the author on the topic\n- [ ] Publications in peer-reviewed journals\n- [ ] Citations of the author's work in other credible sources \n- [ ] Membership in recognised professional or academic organisations\n\n**Recency and Continuity**\n\n- [ ] Recent publications in the field\n- [ ] Continuity of expertise\n\n:::\n\n\n:::warning\nIndicators require interpretation. Some signals are easily misread. \n\n* Fame is not credibility. Public visibility, media presence, or large following do not equal expertise on a specific topic. \n* A high citation count is not in itself credibility. Frequently cited work may also be frequently challenged or contested — the context of citations matters. \n* Institutional affiliation is not in itself credibility. Institutions can carry their own agendas or biases and should be examined alongside the author.\n* A sudden shift to topics outside the author's previous expertise is not automatically a red flag, but warrants closer examination.\n\n:::\n\nAssessing an organisation's reputation requires looking beyond surface signals. The following indicators provide starting points — they are most reliable when cross-checked through lateral reading.\n\n### ☑ Indicators of an Organisation's or Publisher's Reputation {{indicators of an organisation's reputation_indicators of an publisher's reputation}}\n\n\n:::success\n#### Funding & Affiliations\n\n- [ ] Funding sources and donors (parent organisations, sponsors, or PR firms behind the organisation)\n- [ ] Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest\n- [ ] Political, industry, or ideological affiliations\n\n#### Editorial & Accountability Practices\n\n- [ ] Corrections or retractions policy\n- [ ] Named editorial leadership or ombudsperson\n- [ ] Separation of editorial, news, and advertising or funding\n- [ ] Transparency about verification methods\n\n#### Identity & Type\n\n- [ ] Type of organisation (academic, journalistic, advocacy, commercial, governmental — see Source Categories)\n- [ ] Front groups or cloaked websites: whether the organisation truly represents what it appears to represent, or fronts for another interest\n\n#### Track Record & Standing\n\n- [ ] Length of operation and continuity of focus\n- [ ] How independent reference sites describe the organisation (Wikipedia, SourceWatch, fact-checkers, established news outlets)\n- [ ] Documented controversies, fact-check ratings, or critical reporting\n\n:::\n\n\n:::warning\nIndicators require interpretation. Some signals are easily misread. \n\n* Non-profit status alone is not credibility. Many advocacy and front organisations operate as non-profits. \n* Professional design and a polished website alone are not credibility. Web design has outpaced our methods for evaluation. \n* A long operating history alone is not reliability — ownership, funding, and practices can change over time. \n* Affiliations do not equal credibility. Institutions can carry their own agendas or biases and should be examined alongside larger networks they are part of.\n\n:::\n\n## Fact-Checking {{fact checker}}\n\nFact-checking refers to the practice of verifying factual claims in information items. \n\nFact-checking exists in two distinct contexts:\n\n* **Pre-publication**: a specialised editorial review team within publishing organisations verifies claims before they are made public \n* **Post-publication**: independent organisations (see below) evaluate already-published claims and produce their own information items in response\n\n### ☑ Fact-Checking Organisations & Websites {{fact-checking organisation_fact-checking websites_fact-checking website}}\n\n\n:::info\n#### AFP Fact Check (France)\n\n* **Languages:** English, French\n* **Focus**: dubious pictures, videos, official statements and other misinformation that appears online\n* **Funding:** partially subsidised by the French government, also receives direct support from Facebook.\n* **Link:** \n\n#### BBC Reality Check (United Kingdom)\n\n* **Language:** English\n* **Focus:** rumours and claims from news sites or social media\n* **Funding:** publicly funded\n* **Link:** \n\n#### Correctiv (Germany)\n\n* **Languages**: German; also publishes in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Turkish via partner outlets\n* **Focus**: mis- and disinformation, investigative journalism\n\n **Funding**: donations (major donors include Luminate, Brost-Stiftung, Open Society Foundations, Google, Deutsche Telekom); a commercial subsidiary receives payment from Facebook for fact-checking content \n* Link: \n\n#### dpa-Faktencheck (Germany)\n\n* **Languages**: German, Dutch, French (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg)\n* **Focus**: claims of public relevance; political statements and viral content\n* **Funding**: market-funded news agency; minor project funding (Google News Initiative, EU); Meta cooperation flagged per fact-check\n* **Link**: \n\n#### FactCheck.org (United States)\n\n* **Language**: English\n* **Focus**: US political claims and statements; viral hoaxes\n* **Funding**: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation; Meta partnership ran from 2016 until ending in 2025 \n* **Link**: \n\n#### **Faktabaari (Finland)**\n\n* **Languages:** Finnish, Swedish, English\n* **Focus:** fact-checks, especially during local, national and European elections\n* **Funding:** primarily via third sector grants and prizes\n* **Link:** \n\n#### Maldita.es (Spain)\n\n* **Language**: Spanish\n* **Focus**: politics, science, health, climate, migration, gender; community-driven\n* **Funding**: nonprofit foundation; donations, membership, platform partnerships (Meta, Google), EU research projects\n* **Link**: \n\n#### Pagella Politica (Italy)\n\n* **Language**: Italian\n* **Focus**: statements by Italian politicians (sister site Facta.news covers viral mis-/disinformation)\n* **Funding**: private company; revenue from media clients, Meta partnership (via Facta.news), EU and Erasmus+ project funding\n* **Link**: \n\n#### **Reuters Fact Check** (UK)\n\n* **Language**: English\n* **Focus**: Visual material, claims posted on social media\n* **Funding**: Reuters, Facebook provides financial support\n* **Link**: \n\n#### Snopes (USA)\n\n* **Language**: English\n* **Focus**: urban legends, internet rumours, US political and social claims\n* **Funding**: independent media company; advertising and member subscriptions; previous Meta partnership ended 2019\n* **Link**: \n\n:::\n\n\n:::warning\nMost major fact-checking organisations receive funding or partnership payments from large digital platforms (Meta/Facebook in particular). This relationship is openly disclosed but warrants critical reflection.\n\n:::\n\n\n:::tip\nEDMO Monthly Fact-Checking Briefs: \n\n:::\n\n\n\n:::info\nCaulfield, Mike. 2017. *Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers*. \n\n* Caulfield, Mike. 2019. \"SIFT (The Four Moves)\". \n* Daniels, J. (2009). Cloaked websites: Propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. New Media & Society, 11(5), 659–683. \n* Harris, R. (2020). Evaluating Internet Research Sources. VirtualSalt. Available at: \n* Osborne, J., Pimentel, D., Alberts, B., Allchin, D., Barzilai, S., Bergstrom, C., Coffey, J., Donovan, B., Kivinen, K., Kozyreva. A., & Wineburg, S. (2022). *Science Education in an Age of Misinformation*. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.\n* Wineburg, Sam & McGrew, Sarah. 2017. \"Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More when Evaluating Digital Information\". Working Paper No 2017.A1 / Standford History Education Group. \n\n:::","RENDERMODE":"markdown","HTML":"

Source

\n

Source is used in several overlapping ways when evaluating an information item.

\n
    \n
  • As information item:
    the information item itself, classified by degree of mediation, such as primary, secondary, or tertiary source, and by source type\n
    • \n
  • As creator or author:\n
    • \n
\n

the person, organisation, account, or system that produced the content

\n
    \n
  • As publisher, host, or information environment:\n
    • \n
\n

the publication, platform, website, channel, or environment in which the information item appears

\n
    \n
  • As distributor:\n
    • \n
\n

the person, account, bot, platform, or recommendation system through which the information item reached the user

\n
    \n
  • As cited or referenced source:
    a source that another information item cites, quotes, links to, or refers to\n
    • \n
\n

Creator / Author

\n

The creator or author is the person, organisation, account, or system that has created an information item.

\n
    \n
  • They may be identified, pseudonymous, or anonymous.\n
    • \n
  • Identifying the creator or author helps evaluate expertise, accountability, perspective, and possible interests behind the information item.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n\n

"Exclusive: AI writing hasn't overwhelmed the web yet" (https://www.axios.com/2025/10/14/ai-generated-writing-humans) This article provides an up-to-date overview of studies that compare human and AI-made content and comment on fear that "if AI-made content online overwhelms human-created material, large language models could choke on their own exhaust and collapse."

\n
\n
\n

Degree of Mediation

\n

The degree of mediation does show is how far the information item is from the original material — and therefore how many steps of selection, interpretation, and potential distortion lie in between.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Degree of MediationEpistemic Proximity / Relation to Original Information ItemExamples

Primary Source

Directly presents, documents, analyses, or interprets original information: raw data, original events, or firsthand experience
  • WHO research report \n * Eyewitness account \n * Original dataset \n * Parliamentary speech

Secondary Source

References and reports on, analyses, interprets, comments on, or reframes one or more primary information items
  • Newspaper article about the WHO report \n * Textbook chapter summarising research findings \n * Social media post quoting from a scientific study and commenting on the quote

Tertiary Source

References, compiles, or summarises multiple primary and/or secondary information items, typically without presenting new original information
  • TikTok video reacting to a tweet that commented on a scientific study \n * Wikipedia entry \n * Encyclopedia overview
\n
\n
\n\n

The degree of mediation does not determine reliability or trustworthiness.
→ A primary source can be biased, incomplete, or wrong (e.g., an eyewitness account, a misleading dataset).
→ A secondary source can be more reliable than the primary material it reports on (e.g., a fact-checked article correcting a politician's claims).

\n
\n
\n

Degree of Editorial Review

\n

Editorial review is a formal pre-publication process in which an editor or an editorial team decides which information items reach the public and checks their content against the publisher's standards:

\n
    \n
  • Gatekeeping: Selection & Exclusion: selecting which information items are published and which are not\n
    • \n
  • Quality Control: Verification: verifying content, sources, and accuracy (→ source-credibility & information reliability)\n
    • \n
\n

Rigour varies from informal one-person editing to formal multi-stage review.

\n
\n
\n\n

The editorial process is broader still: editors are often also involved, alongside the author, in creating an item, i.e. selecting information for publication (→ gatekeeping) and framing its content.

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Editorial review is not neutral.
A formal process and a rigorous quality check do not preclude bias. Editorial decisions reflect the motives, interests, and editorial line of the publishing organisation: its mission, ownership, funding, and target audience. The same piece can be carefully checked and framed in ways that serve the publisher's agenda (→ editorial curation). Quality and bias are not mutually exclusive.

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

The reliability of an information item depends primarily on the expertise of the creator and the editorial review it received — not on whoever shared it.

\n
    \n
  • a retweeted article: the account that shared it is not its author → there is a separate author behind the article, whose expertise needs to be checked\n
    • \n
  • a bot posting a link: the bot that posted it is not its creator → the linked content has its own creator, whose expertise needs to be checked\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Peer Review

\n

Peer review is a specialised form of editorial review used in academic and scientific publishing. Before a manuscript is published, it is evaluated by independent experts in the same field (peers), who assess its quality, methodology, originality, and validity. They recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection; the final decision rests with the editor.

\n

Common forms include

\n
    \n
  • single-blind (reviewers know the author's identity),\n
    • \n
  • double-blind (neither side knows the other's), and\n
    • \n
  • open peer review (identities disclosed).\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n\n

Peer review is a quality-control mechanism, not a guarantee of correctness. It can miss errors, fail to detect fraud, or reflect reviewer bias. Passing peer review raises the likelihood of reliability but does not establish it.

\n
\n
\n

Print & Broadcast

\n

In traditional publication contexts, the roles of creator and editor were typically separate: a journalist (content-creator) and a newspaper editorial team (editor).

\n

Digital Information Platforms & Channels

\n

In digital environments, the boundaries shift. The editorial role is often bypassed: anyone with an account can post or share information without editorial review or institutional backing.

\n

At the same time, source-driven visibility promotion and platform-driven visibility promotion shape visibility in ways that traditional publishers and distribution networks did not.

\n

Source Types

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source Type
What kind of source is this?		Authors / Creators
Who is typically behind it?		Primary Interest
What is their main purpose?		Communicative Intentions
How do they typically communicate?		Editorial Review
How carefully is the information checked before publication?		Implications for Reliability and Trustworthiness
How does this affect reliability and trustworthiness?		Genres
What formats do information items in this source type typically take?

Academic / Educational

- Universities
- Research institutions
- Schools
- Scholarly publishers		- Knowledge production
- Education		- Informing
- Explaining
- Documenting evidence		Often formally reviewed, though the level of review varies.Often stronger in evidence use and documentation, but findings may be preliminary, narrowly scoped, or superseded by newer research.- Journal article
- Textbook
- Lecture recording
- Encyclopedia entry

Commercial / Promotional

- Companies
- Brands
- Industry associations
- Sponsored creators		- Profit
- Market position
- Reputation		- Promoting
- Selling
- Building brand trust		Usually internally reviewed for brand, legal, or marketing purposes.Professionally produced and shaped by commercial interests; marketing and information are often blurred.- Sponsored post
- Brand blog
- Product microsite
- Corporate press release

Individual / Personal

- Private persons
- Unaffiliated creators
- Personal networks		- Self-expression
- Sharing
- Opinion
- Experience
- …		- Expressing
- Sharing
- Commenting
- Entertaining		Usually not formally reviewed before publication.Can offer firsthand perspectives, but reliability, expertise, and accountability vary widely.- Personal blog
- Forum comment
- Private message- Social media post
- Personal video

Journalistic

- News organisations
- Editorial teams
- Independent journalists		- Public reporting
- Audience reach		- Reporting
- Interpreting
- Investigating
- Commenting		Often editorially reviewed, though standards vary.Can provide verified and contextualised reporting, but quality varies by outlet, genre, speed, and commercial pressure.- News article
- Feature
- Opinion piece
- Editorial
- Investigative podcast

Philanthropic / Service-oriented

- Humanitarian organisations
- Charitable foundations
- Service-oriented NGOs		- Public benefit
- Aid
- Welfare		- Informing
- Supporting
- Coordinating aid
- Raising awareness		Often internally reviewed, though standards vary.Often mission-driven and grounded in practical experience, but scope, independence, and evidence use vary.- Aid programme page
- Foundation project report
- Charity newsletter

Political / Advocacy

- Parties
- Campaigns
- Advocacy groups
- Activists
- Lobbying groups		- Advocacy
- Persuasion
- Mobilisation		- Persuading
- Pressuring
- Agenda-setting
- Mobilising		Usually strategically reviewed to support a position or campaign.Important for public debate, but often shaped by advocacy, persuasion, or institutional interests.- Party programme
- Campaign ad
- Manifesto
- Lobbying paper

Professional / Membership-based

- Professional associations
- Trade unions
- Chambers
- Learned societies		- Member interests
- Professional standards		- Representing
- Standard-setting
- Coordinating
- Informing members		Often internally reviewed for accuracy and consistency.Often grounded in domain expertise, but perspective may reflect member interests rather than broader public interest.- Professional guideline
- Member newsletter
- Position paper
- Sector report

Public / Official

- Governments
- Ministries
- Public authorities
- International organisations		- Public mandate
- Regulation
- Policy		- Announcing
- Regulating
- Legitimising
- Informing the public		Usually formally reviewed and approved before publication.Often authoritative about official positions and decisions, but may be selective, strategic, or self-presentational.- Policy document
- Official statement
- FAQ page
- Ministry report
\n
\n
\n\n

Genres are not exclusive to a single source category. A newsletter, for example, can be commercial, philanthropic, or professional. The genre alone is not a sufficient indicator of reliability or trustworthiness.

\n
\n
\n

Source Credibility & Information Reliability

\n

Modern knowledge is so specialised that no individual can verify all claims independently.

\n

We have to rely on experts and on credible sources. But this reliance is only as good as our ability to identify who genuinely is an expert and which information is reliable.

\n

▶ Lateral Reading

\n

Lateral reading is a strategy of evaluating sources and content like a professional.

\n
    \n
  • Source Checking
    verification of the expertise and reputation of authors and publishers\n
    • \n
  • Fact-Checking
    verification of specific claims in the information item\n
    • \n
\n

The initial focus is on questioning the source (who is behind the content), not the content itself. Instead of reading vertically — staying on a website and analysing it from top to bottom — you leave the site quickly, search for the source's name, and check what other trustworthy sites say about it. If the source seems untrustworthy, don't waste your time on it. Find a better source.

\n

The same lateral approach also works for verifying digital platforms, specific claims, quotes, or statistics within the content: leave the page and search for independent confirmation.

\n

☑ Lateral Reading Steps

\n
\n
\n\n

Don't try to judge a source by reading it. Leave it. Use the rest of the web to find out what it is.

\n
    \n
  • Leave the website.\n
    • \n
  • Open a new tab (Cmd-Click / Ctrl-Click) and search the web for the target name.\n
    • \n
  • Use exact search terms — put names in quotation marks.\n
    • \n
  • Add specific terms from the checklists below to focus on a particular point (e.g., "Employment Policies Institute" + "funding sources").\n
    • \n
  • Practice click restraint.\n
    • \n
  • Don't click the first result.\n
    • \n
  • Scan snippets and URLs of several results; look for entries on independent reference sites (Wikipedia, SourceWatch, established news outlets).\n
    • \n
  • Corroborate.\n
    • \n
  • On reliable external sites, use the find-on-page shortcut (command+F) to quickly locate names or key terms to verify.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Source Checking

\n

Verifying whether an author genuinely has expertise in a field is rarely straightforward. The following indicators provide starting points. They are most reliable when cross-checked through lateral reading.

\n

☑ Indicators of Author's Expertise & Credentials

\n
\n
\n\n

Identifiability

\n
    \n
  • Author's name and professional role\n
    • \n
  • Contact information (e.g. institutional email, professional website)\n
    • \n
  • Verifiable professional profile (e.g. ResearchGate, institutional page, LinkedIn)\n

    Qualification and Subject Expertise

    \n
    • \n
  • Educational background relevant to the topic\n
    • \n
  • Professional experience in the topic field\n
    • \n
  • Specialisation in the specific area discussed\n

    Institutional Backing, Funding, and Bias

    \n
    • \n
  • Affiliation with an identifiable institution or organisation\n
    • \n
  • Author's position within the institution\n
    • \n
  • Disclosed funding sources and conflicts of interest\n
    • \n
  • Affiliations with groups or organisations holding a specific agenda\n

    Publication Track Record

    \n
    • \n
  • Other publications by the author on the topic\n
    • \n
  • Publications in peer-reviewed journals\n
    • \n
  • Citations of the author's work in other credible sources\n
    • \n
  • Membership in recognised professional or academic organisations\n

    Recency and Continuity

    \n
    • \n
  • Recent publications in the field\n
    • \n
  • Continuity of expertise\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Indicators require interpretation. Some signals are easily misread.

\n
    \n
  • Fame is not credibility. Public visibility, media presence, or large following do not equal expertise on a specific topic.\n
    • \n
  • A high citation count is not in itself credibility. Frequently cited work may also be frequently challenged or contested — the context of citations matters.\n
    • \n
  • Institutional affiliation is not in itself credibility. Institutions can carry their own agendas or biases and should be examined alongside the author.\n
    • \n
  • A sudden shift to topics outside the author's previous expertise is not automatically a red flag, but warrants closer examination.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Assessing an organisation's reputation requires looking beyond surface signals. The following indicators provide starting points — they are most reliable when cross-checked through lateral reading.

\n

☑ Indicators of an Organisation's or Publisher's Reputation

\n
\n
\n\n

Funding & Affiliations

\n
    \n
  • Funding sources and donors (parent organisations, sponsors, or PR firms behind the organisation)\n
    • \n
  • Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest\n
    • \n
  • Political, industry, or ideological affiliations\n
    • \n
\n

Editorial & Accountability Practices

\n
    \n
  • Corrections or retractions policy\n
    • \n
  • Named editorial leadership or ombudsperson\n
    • \n
  • Separation of editorial, news, and advertising or funding\n
    • \n
  • Transparency about verification methods\n
    • \n
\n

Identity & Type

\n
    \n
  • Type of organisation (academic, journalistic, advocacy, commercial, governmental — see Source Categories)\n
    • \n
  • Front groups or cloaked websites: whether the organisation truly represents what it appears to represent, or fronts for another interest\n
    • \n
\n

Track Record & Standing

\n
    \n
  • Length of operation and continuity of focus\n
    • \n
  • How independent reference sites describe the organisation (Wikipedia, SourceWatch, fact-checkers, established news outlets)\n
    • \n
  • Documented controversies, fact-check ratings, or critical reporting\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Indicators require interpretation. Some signals are easily misread.

\n
    \n
  • Non-profit status alone is not credibility. Many advocacy and front organisations operate as non-profits.\n
    • \n
  • Professional design and a polished website alone are not credibility. Web design has outpaced our methods for evaluation.\n
    • \n
  • A long operating history alone is not reliability — ownership, funding, and practices can change over time.\n
    • \n
  • Affiliations do not equal credibility. Institutions can carry their own agendas or biases and should be examined alongside larger networks they are part of.\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n

Fact-Checking

\n

Fact-checking refers to the practice of verifying factual claims in information items.

\n

Fact-checking exists in two distinct contexts:

\n
    \n
  • Pre-publication: a specialised editorial review team within publishing organisations verifies claims before they are made public\n
    • \n
  • Post-publication: independent organisations (see below) evaluate already-published claims and produce their own information items in response\n
    • \n
\n

☑ Fact-Checking Organisations & Websites

\n
\n
\n\n

AFP Fact Check (France)

\n
    \n
  • Languages: English, French\n
    • \n
  • Focus: dubious pictures, videos, official statements and other misinformation that appears online\n
    • \n
  • Funding: partially subsidised by the French government, also receives direct support from Facebook.\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://factcheck.afp.com/\n
    • \n
\n

BBC Reality Check (United Kingdom)

\n\n

Correctiv (Germany)

\n
    \n
  • Languages: German; also publishes in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Turkish via partner outlets\n
    • \n
  • Focus: mis- and disinformation, investigative journalism\n

    Funding: donations (major donors include Luminate, Brost-Stiftung, Open Society Foundations, Google, Deutsche Telekom); a commercial subsidiary receives payment from Facebook for fact-checking content

    \n
    • \n
  • Link: https://correctiv.org/\n
    • \n
\n

dpa-Faktencheck (Germany)

\n
    \n
  • Languages: German, Dutch, French (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg)\n
    • \n
  • Focus: claims of public relevance; political statements and viral content\n
    • \n
  • Funding: market-funded news agency; minor project funding (Google News Initiative, EU); Meta cooperation flagged per fact-check\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/\n
    • \n
\n

FactCheck.org (United States)

\n
    \n
  • Language: English\n
    • \n
  • Focus: US political claims and statements; viral hoaxes\n
    • \n
  • Funding: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation; Meta partnership ran from 2016 until ending in 2025\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://www.factcheck.org/\n
    • \n
\n

Faktabaari (Finland)

\n
    \n
  • Languages: Finnish, Swedish, English\n
    • \n
  • Focus: fact-checks, especially during local, national and European elections\n
    • \n
  • Funding: primarily via third sector grants and prizes\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://faktabaari.fi/\n
    • \n
\n

Maldita.es (Spain)

\n
    \n
  • Language: Spanish\n
    • \n
  • Focus: politics, science, health, climate, migration, gender; community-driven\n
    • \n
  • Funding: nonprofit foundation; donations, membership, platform partnerships (Meta, Google), EU research projects\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://maldita.es/\n
    • \n
\n

Pagella Politica (Italy)

\n
    \n
  • Language: Italian\n
    • \n
  • Focus: statements by Italian politicians (sister site Facta.news covers viral mis-/disinformation)\n
    • \n
  • Funding: private company; revenue from media clients, Meta partnership (via Facta.news), EU and Erasmus+ project funding\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://pagellapolitica.it/\n
    • \n
\n

Reuters Fact Check (UK)

\n
    \n
  • Language: English\n
    • \n
  • Focus: Visual material, claims posted on social media\n
    • \n
  • Funding: Reuters, Facebook provides financial support\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/\n
    • \n
\n

Snopes (USA)

\n
    \n
  • Language: English\n
    • \n
  • Focus: urban legends, internet rumours, US political and social claims\n
    • \n
  • Funding: independent media company; advertising and member subscriptions; previous Meta partnership ended 2019\n
    • \n
  • Link: https://www.snopes.com/\n
    • \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Most major fact-checking organisations receive funding or partnership payments from large digital platforms (Meta/Facebook in particular). This relationship is openly disclosed but warrants critical reflection.

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

EDMO Monthly Fact-Checking Briefs: https://edmo.eu/resources/fact-checking-publications/fact-checking-briefs/

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n

Caulfield, Mike. 2017. Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers. https://pressbooks.pub/webliteracy/front-matter/web-strategies-for-student-fact-checkers/

\n
    \n
  • Caulfield, Mike. 2019. "SIFT (The Four Moves)". https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/\n
    • \n
  • Daniels, J. (2009). Cloaked websites: Propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. New Media & Society, 11(5), 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105345\n
    • \n
  • Harris, R. (2020). Evaluating Internet Research Sources. VirtualSalt. Available at: https://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm\n
    • \n
  • Osborne, J., Pimentel, D., Alberts, B., Allchin, D., Barzilai, S., Bergstrom, C., Coffey, J., Donovan, B., Kivinen, K., Kozyreva. A., & Wineburg, S. (2022). Science Education in an Age of Misinformation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.\n
    • \n
  • Wineburg, Sam & McGrew, Sarah. 2017. "Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More when Evaluating Digital Information". Working Paper No 2017.A1 / Standford History Education Group. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3048994\n
    • \n
\n
\n
","UPDATEDAT":"2026-06-10T11:11:37.145Z","ID":"7dc792ad-5685-471f-beb7-f0a4c4c859cd","TITLE":"Information Reliability & Source Credibility"}