Figment or Reality? 6 Strategies to Evaluate Information Online

Knowing how to assess online sources is no longer optional in this digital era—it’s essential.

Algorithms can trap users in echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and filtering out opposing views. Nakharin T/Shutterstock

I once worked in the communications department of a large organization and witnessed firsthand how quickly and easily falsehoods can spread online. In one incident, the organization sought to cover the emergence of a significant public figure on the world stage. Little was known about this figure, and everyone scrambled to dig up information about this person’s past and views on hot-button issues.

In the fight to stand out among the deluge of information and the cacophony of voices online, every outlet wants to be the first to break significant stories—in this case, the first to unearth relevant quotes by the person in question. Credibility, popularity, and—ultimately—money, depend on it.

For this reason, one social media staffer at my organization took a shortcut and used AI to find quotes from the public figure on key issues that we could repost on our social channels. The staffer submitted a query along these lines to some AI chatbot. The AI spit out a few alleged quotations from the public figure, and the staffer, unfortunately, posted the content on our social pages as genuine without verifying it. As became clear later, the AI had made a mistake and the quotations were either completely made up or were actually said by somebody else and had been misattributed.

Nevertheless, in the space of a few hours the fake quotations our organization had unwittingly generated and published were picked up, copied, redistributed, and passed off as legitimate by at least half a dozen other organizations and outlets. I was gobsmacked to see how uncritically these quotations were accepted by a wide range of other organizations—including some pretty well-respected ones.

Like multiplying bacteria, the alleged quotations appeared on so many different websites by the end of the day that a casual researcher would be convinced of their authenticity. How could the quotes be false if so many different outlets “independently” published the same words?

I share this story as a way of highlighting the dangers of false information on the internet. Of course, lies have always existed, but the frenetic speed at which information transmits online means that a falsehood can replicate and spread, virus-like, at incredible speeds, until it seems to gain the status of a consensus—when in reality, the “fact” in question originated with a single faulty source.

The internet provides access to a staggering amount of information and data—a fact that, as a writer, I’m grateful for every day. I don’t mean to downplay the internet’s usefulness, nor its ability to open up new paths to truth for countless people. But we’d be naive if we viewed the internet as a panacea. It presents as many challenges and difficulties as it does solutions. Sometimes, access to limitless information is a Pyrrhic victory as we struggle to escape the quagmire of unvetted “facts” and opinions drowning us.

We live in an age flooded with information that is hurtling down upon us with a speed and volume humanity has simply never seen. Because of the plethora of available information, we have to be astute sifters, able to filter out the falsehood, propaganda, and manipulation that haunt cyberspace. No corner of the internet is completely free of falsehood—some of it intentionally spread, some by mistake. Both sides of the political aisle—as well as the space between!—have their share of misinformation and disinformation.

As a writer and journalist, I’ve had to learn, often the hard way, to discern between figment and reality online. These are a few strategies that have helped me.

The sheer speed and volume of online information make critical thinking more essential than ever. PeopleImages/Shutterstock

1. Critically Evaluate Sources

When weighing information online, first consider where it comes from. Who wrote it, who published it, and why? It’s worth evaluating whether the source information in question was created by someone with credentials or not. Of course, credentials aren’t necessarily a guarantee of truth, but, all else being equal, an expert in a field should be trusted more than someone who knows less about the subject.

Does the author have a known bias? Most people do. A bias doesn’t necessarily undercut the truth of the information, but it might, and it should be kept in mind when digesting the information. Similarly, understanding the author’s motive can illuminate the information further and add or subtract from its reliability. Is the author trying to make money? To control others? To stoke fear? All that should be taken into account and it may reduce its trustworthiness in some cases. Another important question to ask is whether the source cites other sources. If the information references no sources, just baldly throwing out claims with no evidence to back them up, then it’s immediately suspect.

Publishers need to be vetted along with authors. Not all platforms possess equal reliability. The powerful tools of the internet make it easy for anyone to craft a professional looking website or blog—or even impersonate someone else’s—with little difficulty. Generally speaking, larger, more established publications require that content pass through multiple sets of eyes and a more rigorous editorial process that helps ensure its truthfulness. That’s not to say that a lone blogger couldn’t be telling the truth—nor does it mean that larger publications are always honest. But, again, all else being equal, publications with editorial oversight carry more weight than publications without it.

2. Scrutinize Handles, Usernames, and URLs

Deceivers can impersonate respected social media accounts or even create copycat websites that look almost the same as the original. So it’s important to look carefully at Facebook usernames, Twitter handles, and even domain names. Cornell University Library recommends checking URLs. A fake website’s domain name or URL can often look very similar to the original, with just one or two different letters.

When I was a teacher, I directed my students to use websites whose addresses ended in .edu (universities and educational organizations), .org (nonprofits), or .gov (governmental organizations) instead of websites whose URLs end in .com (companies). This is because .com addresses belong to companies whose primary aim is to make money, not necessarily to inform.

Whenever financial concerns become entangled with information, the truth is at risk. Of course, government or nonprofit organizations, even though they don’t aim  to make money, can have other reasons for posting untruths. Still, it’s helpful to know the differences between types of website domain names.

3. Look for Cross-Verification (but Be Aware of False-Consensus)

When verifying  a claim, look for consensus. Just as a jury seeks to establish the truth of events by finding corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses, we should do the same when evaluating claims on the internet. If multiple sources independently state the same thing, it has a higher probability of being true. The operative word here is “independently.”  A consensus can appear to form when the same falsehood gets copied-and-pasted enough times. That’s why it’s important to trace the origin of the claim to its original source—if everyone’s citing the same source, the “consensus” carries less weight.

Better than multiple internet sources verifying one another are offline sources—be that books, witnesses, experts, or your own two eyes—to cross-check internet rumors.

4. Use IMVAIN Strategies

The Loyola Marymount University William Hannon Library provides a helpful acronym that ties together many of the strategies discussed in this article: IMVAIN. Any internet narrative can be analyzed using IMVAIN, which stands for

• Independent - Are the sources independent or self-interested and heavily biased?
• Multiple sources - Do multiple, separate sources report the same information?
• Verifiable - Do sources provide verifiable information with sources and evidence?
• Authoritative - Do the sources have strong knowledge of the subject at hand or are they uninformed?
• Named - Are the sources named or anonymous and hard to pin down?

Scrutinizing every source, including author, motive, and reliability, is the first defense against misinformation. Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

5. Check Your Sources’ Track Record

Sometimes, it’s impossible to judge the credibility and reliability of a source right away. But that trustworthiness becomes clearer over time. If a particular source consistently reports facts or makes predictions that turn out to be true over a significant period of time, then you can trust that source more. On the other hand, a source that makes wild claims that repeatedly fail to stand up to scrutiny, or dramatic predictions that repeatedly fail to materialize, should be trusted less.  It’s worth looking at past articles published by the source under evaluation to check their track record of accuracy.

6. Beware the Echo Chamber and Acknowledge Your Own Biases

One of the most challenging aspects of evaluating online content is remaining aware of one’s own biases and how digital algorithms may feed into them.  The internet provides the perfect environment for an echo chamber in which likeminded people congregate and reinforce one another’s existing beliefs. Many sites and search engines exacerbate the effect because algorithms are designed to serve up to users the kind of content they want to see. That’s how internet companies make money, after all.

As users interact more with certain  content—content that supports their beliefs—the website or search engine will provide more of that content, further fossilizing the user’s presuppositions.

In addition to algorithmic suggestions, even our own search habits can reinforce our existing views. As Scientific American recently reported, people tend to choose search terms geared toward providing a type of result that matches what they already think.

In one study where participants researched the health effects of caffeine, one participant searched for “caffeine negative effects” while another searched “benefits of caffeine.” Their searches varied based  on what the participants already thought about caffeine.  The former’s search results tended to sway the user to believe caffeine is unhealthy, while the latter’s pushed participants to believe it was healthy.

As study lead Eugina Leung of Tulane University put it, “People often pick search terms that reflect what they believe, without realizing it. Search algorithms are designed to give the most relevant answers for whatever we type, which ends up reinforcing what we already thought.”

By remaining aware of our existing biases and counteracting our tendency to seek out only information that echoes them, we can find more objective information and build a more complete picture of reality.