What are Source Evaluation Myths?
You probably already spend a lot of your time evaluating the credibility of information sources. When you encounter information through the news, social media, or through a search engine, you make decisions about whether or not to trust it. So, you likely already have a good idea about some of the factors that make a source credible or not.
You have also likely already learned some strategies for evaluating sources as part of the research process. You may be familiar with guidelines such as the CRAAP test, which can provide some helpful direction when thinking about what makes a source credible. However, the CRAAP test and other similar guidelines for source credibility were developed when the internet first began to be widely used by the general public. As time has passed, some of the guidance initially developed in this early period is no longer relevant or useful (Wineburg et al., 2020). This guide is intended to highlight strategies that you may have learned, but which often are not really helpful for understanding the credibility of information that you find online.
Myth #1: Domain Indicates Credibility
You may have been taught to consider the domain of the source (.com, .edu, .org) as a way to determine the credibility of the source. In particular, you may have been taught to avoid .com sites and to trust .org sites. However, there are significant concerns with this strategy. First, anyone can get a .org website, including individuals, corporations, political or lobbying organizations, and even hate groups. You do not need to be a non-profit organization. And even if the organization is a non-profit organization, there is no guarantee that it is a credible or trustworthy organization (Wineburg et al., 2020). For more information about this topic, see the following article by Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv: The Meaningless of the .Org Domain.
On the other hand, while you may have been told not to trust .com sites, most of the most credible news organizations have .com sites. And, the home page for most scholarly journals are also .com sites. The bottom line is the the domain does not provide a good indicator of the credibility of a particular site.
Myth #2: You Can Trust the "About" Section of the Site
You may also have been taught to carefully consider the information on the "About" or "About Us" section of the site. However, it is important to note that organizations that have less than trustworthy intentions can easily misrepresent themselves or hide their true origins. As noted by Wineburg et al., "for many groups the About page could just as easily be called the spin page." No one checks to make sure what each organization is saying about itself is actually true. You need to be skeptical about what an organization tells you about itself.
Myth #3: If a Site Has Links or References, It is Trustworthy
Another common guideline is to check if a site has references. However, the presence of links or references alone does not indicate that a site can be trusted. Some sites, for example, may provide references, but only to different pages of the same site, or other sites or resources produced by the same organization. Others may provide references to outside sites or sources, but misrepresent the information in those links, trusting that you will not likely check all of the links on the site (Wineburg et al., 2020). References can be valuable for learning more about the site and the topic, but should not be taken to mean that a site can definitely be trusted.
Myth #4: The Appearance of a Site Indicates Credibility
The final myth to highlight is that a site that looks professional and well-made should be considered more credible. While it is true you would likely find a poorly-made site with misspellings and broken links to lack credibility, just because a site is attractive and without errors does not mean it is trustworthy. An organization or individual that may be trying to mislead you in some way will likely still have the resources to create a professional looking website. Just because a site looks good and works does not mean that you can automatically trust it.
Summary: Evaluation Myths
To conclude, keep in mind that many aspects of a site, including the domain, the about us information, and the appearance, do not actually provide much useful information about credibility, as these are superficial and easily manipulated components of a site. For a more effective evaluation strategy, we recommend learning more about lateral reading.
Credits: This guide was created by The Ohio State University Libraries. Information in the guide is based on the following sources: Sam Wineburg, Joel Breakstone, Nadav Ziv, & Mark Smith, "Educating for Misunderstanding: How Approaches to Teaching Digital Literacy Make Students Susceptible to Scammers, Rogues, Bad Actors, and Hate Mongers" (Working Paper A-21322, Stanford History Education Group, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2020). https://purl.stanford.edu/mf412bt5333 and Sam Wineburg and Nadav Ziv, (2019), "The Meaningless of the .Org Domain," The New York Times. Image credits (licensed from Adobe Stock): Domain name concept flat tiny person vector illustration by VectorMine: About us vector website landing page design template by skypicsstudio; Tier link building concept SEO optimization, search engine ranking development...by Sammby; Website design - building a website, working on layout by biscotto87.