To avoid confirmation bias in searches: Avoid asking questions that imply a certain answer. If I ask “Did the Holocaust happen?,” for example, I am implying that it is likely that the Holocaust was faked. If you want information on the Holocaust, sometimes it’s better just to start with a simple noun search, e.g. “Holocaust,” and read summaries that show how we know what happened. Avoid using terms that imply a certain answer. As an example, if you query “Women 72 cents on the dollar” you’ll likely get articles that tell you women make 72 cents on the dollar. But is you search for “Women 80 cents on the dollar” you’ll get articles that say women make 80 cents on the dollar. Searching for general articles on the “wage gap”  might be a better choice. Avoid culturally loaded terms. As an example, the term “black-on-white crime” is term used by white supremacist groups, but is not a term generally used by sociologists. As such, if you put that term into the Google search bar, you are going to get some sites that will carry the perspective of white supremacist sites, and be lousy sources of serious sociological analysis. Plan to reformulate. Think carefully about what constitutes an authoritative source before you search. Once you search you’ll find you have an irrepressible urge to click into the top results. If you can, think of what sorts of sources and information you would like to see in the results before you search. If you don’t see those in the results, fight the impulse to click on forward, and reformulate your search. Scan results for better terms. Maybe your first question about whether the holocaust happened turned up a lousy result set in general but did pop up a Wikipedia article on Holocaust denialism. Use that term to make a better search for what you actually want to know.

Treating Google’s “Snippets” with Suspicion

Quotes are the internet are some of the most commonly faked content. People misattribute quotes to give them significance, or fabricate tendentious quotes to create controversy. (For some examples of fact-checking historical quotes, check out Quote Investigator)

Using the Wayback Machine to Check for Page Changes

Verifying Twitter Identity

The news gathering piece is affected by this, but in many ways largely separate, and the reputation for fact checking is largely separate as well

Using Google Scholar to Check Author Expertise

Lateral readers gain a better understanding as to whether to trust the facts and analysis presented to them

by going to the local source we can start with a cleaner version of the facts

Using Google Reverse Image Search

Incidentally, we also find answers to other questions in the Matthew Mills version: he took the picture but didn’t arrange the carts

This also introduces us to another helpful practice: when scanning search results, novices scan the titles. Pros scan the URLs beneath the titles, looking for clues as to which sources are best. (Be a pro!)

Unfortunately, many people on the web are not good citizens. This is particularly true with material that spreads quickly as hundreds or thousands of people share it–so-called “viral” content.

You’ll also occasionally see people complaining about a story from the New York Times, claiming it shows a New York “liberal bias” only to find the story was not even written by the New York Times, but by the Associated Press, Reuters, or some other syndicator.

You click through to a page that’s on the New York Times site, but not by the New York Times:

After you’ve ranked the websites, answer these questions: Did the ranking surprise you at all? What do you think the quantity of sponsored content indicates about a website? How does this change your perspective on these websites’ reliability? Why would some websites have more sponsored content than others?

It’s an ad served from another site into this page in a way that makes it look like a story.

Because the Wikipedia community has strict rules about sourcing facts to reliable sources, and because authors must adopt a neutral point of view, its articles are often the best available introduction to a subject on the web.

Some Reputable Fact-Checking Organizations

a reputable fact-checking site or subject wiki will have done much of the leg work for you: tracing claims to their source, identifying the owners of various sites, and linking to reputable sources for counterclaims

Our normal inclination is to ignore verification needs when we react strongly to content, and researchers have found that content that causes strong emotions (both positive and negative) spreads the fastest through our social networks.[1] Savvy activists and advocates take advantage of this flaw of ours, getting past our filters by posting material that goes straight to our hearts.

And if at any point you fail–if the source you find is not trustworthy, complex questions emerge, or the claim turns out to have multiple sub-claims–then you circle back, and start a new process. Rewrite the claim. Try a new search of fact-checking sites, or find an alternate source (Circle back).

For these daily tasks, students need concrete strategies and tactics for tracing claims to sources and for analyzing the nature and reliability of those sources.