Skip to main content
LibApps staff login

Misinformation

Overview

To combat misinformation and build immunity, it's essential to investigate each source you find for accuracy, credibility, currency, and more. Thinking critically about any information you find encourages you to not only be a better consumer of news, but also a better information citizen. 

Click on each tab to learn about the different frameworks for evaluating misinformation. 

Evaluation Framworks

The SIFT method is a widely recognized evaluation tool created by Mike Caulfield. The SIFT framework offers a flexible set of interconnected practices for quickly gauging the credibility of online information. 

Stop:

  • Before reading an article, watching a video, or reacting to a source, stop yourself.
  • Get a sense of what you're looking at. Do you know this information source? Do you know it's reputation or claims?
  • If you feel overwhelmed with fact-checking or navigating away from the original task, stop and reassess what you want to do.

Investigate the Source:

  • Know what you're reading before actually reading it.
  • If you aren’t familiar with a source, use Google or Wikipedia to investigate a news organization or other resource. Use Google Scholar to verify the expertise of authors. 

Find Better Coverage:

  • Look for other trusted reporting or analysis on the claim of the source you found. 
  • Scan multiple sources for expert consensus or what better suits your needs, whether that's a more trusted source, more in-depth sources, or more varied sources.

Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to the Original Context:

  • View media in its original context to confirm if the version you saw was accurately presented.
  • Think about the overall context, sequence of events, supporting evidence, and more.

Reference
Caulfield, M. (2019, June 19). SIFT (The four moves). Hapgood. 

The CONSPIR(E) framework offers a detailed approach to understanding the key characteristics of conspiracy theories, highlighting the ways in which they thrive on contradictory beliefs, extreme suspicion, perceived victimhood, and immunity to evidence, making it a useful tool for evaluating and dissecting the logical and psychological elements behind such theories.

Contradictory

  • Internal contradictions characterize conspiracy theories
  • Logical inconsistencies and incoherent beliefs emerge quickly
  • Whether or not the theory is contradictory doesn't matter to the conspiracy theorist so long as the "official account' is disbelieved

Overriding Suspicion

  • Conspiracy theories cast doubts, and theorists are wary of the official narrative.
  • Extreme degrees of suspicion
  • Question everything!

Nefarious Intent

  • Conspirators have sinister plans or motivations
  • Harms and subversions are assumed results

Something Must Be Wrong

  • Specific aspects of a theory can be abandoned when challenged repeatedly 
  • Something still must be off, though!
  • Official account still based on deception

Persecuted Victim

  • Conspiracy theorists see themselves as marginalized victims of persecution concocted by powerful elites. 
  • Conspiracy theorists also see themselves as brave antagonists. 

Immunity to Evidence

  • Conspiracy theories are self-sealing: evidence countering a theory is re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy.
  • Stronger evidence against a theory means the conspiracy must be large! 

RE-interpreting Randomness 

  • Random, unrelated events are somehow deemed to result from the conspiracy.
  • Random events imbued with some substantive meaning
  • Involves illusory pattern perception

References

Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U., & van der Linden, S. (2020). How to spot COVID-19 conspiracy theories. 

van der Linden, S. (2023). Foolproof: Why misinformation infects our minds and how to build immunity. W.W. Norton & Company. 

ACT UP is a source evaluation method created by librarian Dawn Stahura to help researchers maintain quality scholarship and integrate diverse perspectives and non-dominant narratives into their work. This comprehensive approach helps users evaluate the reliability of information and spot red flags that may indicate misinformation. Evaluating privilege can help identify how certain viewpoints might perpetuate misinformation by overlooking marginalized voices or presenting information from a biased or one-sided perspective.

Author:

  • Who wrote the resource? Who are they? What do you know about the author(s)? Background information matters.
  • Are they qualified to speak on the topic? What are their credentials? 
  • Can you find other works? Can you use Google, Wikipedia, LinkedIn, or other resources to find information?

Currency:

  • When was this resource written? When was it published?
  • Does this resource fit into the currency of your topic?
  • Does this resource mostly contain outdated research? 

Truth:

  • How accurate or true is this information? Can you verify any of the claims by looking at other sources?
  • Are there typos, grammar errors, and spelling mistakes? Are there any words that evoke emotional responses?
  • Remember: Something found from a reputable site doesn't mean it's free from outdated research, misinformation, or false claims.

Unbiased:

  • Is the information presented to sway the audience to a particular point of view?
  • What confirmation bias exists? Does it affect the way you search and choose resources? Be mindful of personalization features in searches!
  • Unless otherwise stated, resources should be impartial. But, keep in mind that bias is not always bad, as long as the source is explicit about their bias and agenda.

Privilege:

  • Check the privilege of the author(s). Are they the only folks who might write or publish on this topic? Who is missing in this conversation?
  • Why is this research presented in this database? 
  • What are the subject terms associated with each resource you found? How are they described? Are there inherent biases?

Reference: 
Stahura, D. (2017). ACT UP: Evaluating sources.

The "new" 5 Ws framework is a helpful tool for evaluating the credibility of information and identifying potential misinformation. Considering the "What," "Why," "Who," "When," and "Where" of a source makes you better able to assess its intent, origin, and reliability. This framework helps users think critically about the content they encounter and encourages thorough investigation before spreading information.

WHAT kinds of false content should I watch out for?

  • Investigate the source. Is it fake news, a scam, or a fake ad?
  • Identify the purpose or goal. Is it maliciously, politically, or financially related?
  • Does the source want anything specific (identifiable information, money, clickbait)?
  • Remember that satire and parody sites like The Onion, Hard Times, Beaverton, and Reductress don't contain actual news: they instead provide entertainment.

WHY is it being spread around?

  • Are emotionally loaded words or images included to get you to act a certain way?
  • Be wary of stories you want to believe are true.
  • Don't blindly spread information until you get a full understanding of the information.

WHO is spreading it?

  • Who originally authored, shared, or posted the information? Search for the original source. 
  • Investigate authors (educational background, expertise areas, previous content) and networks/organizations (connections with advertisers, think tanks, sponsors, etc.)
  • Authenticate whether news sources, images, content details, and even authors are real.
  • Don't assume that a newspaper, TV source, or online site is always the original source.

WHEN did it start spreading?

  • Has a photo or description spread around before? Conduct reverse searching for images to see where they initially appeared or what similar images exist. Use a site or browser plug-in like TinEye.
  • How long has the account been active? New accounts or accounts with little history should raise cautionary flags. 
  • Be cautious of the day when content is posted, especially on "prank days" like April 1st.

WHERE else can I find out if something is real?

  • Use words like "scam," "hoax," "fake," and "viral" in searches.
  • Conduct reverse searching for images to see similar or altered images.
  • Visit sites that debunk hoaxes or viral content, like Snopes. 

Reference

MediaSmarts (2017). How to recognize false content online - the new 5 Ws - tip sheet. 

Lateral Reading

Lateral reading has you fact-check and determine an author’s credibility, intent, and biases. You search for articles on the same topic by other writers to see how they cover the topic while scanning through other articles by the author you’re investigating. In essence, you verify what you're reading while engaging in the act of reading.

Questions to ask yourself include:

  • Who funds or sponsors the site where the original piece was published? What do other authoritative sources have to say about that site?
  • When you search the topic of the original piece, are the initial results from fact-checking organizations?
  • Have questions been raised about other articles the author has written?
  • Does what you’re finding elsewhere contradict the original piece?
  • Are credible news outlets reporting on (or perhaps more importantly, not reporting on) what you’re reading?

Reference

News Literacy Project. (2024). News lit tip: Expand your view with lateral reading.