In a way, the problem is as old as universities: we’re trying to make new knowledge using building blocks supplied by others, so we need to evaluate—somehow—the information we have to work with. I begin with a couple of rules:
Obviously, the more familiarity you have with a field, the easier this sort of discussion gets. This is why it’s a poor idea to do a research paper on a topic you are totally unfamiliar with.
You will be tempted to go for the pre-digested work in Wikipedia or other tertiary sources¹. There’s nothing exactly wrong with those sources, but you need more. Particularly, those “information lite” sources act as if all the disputes were settled and all the questions answered. They are not. And you need to go deeper if you are going to do critical thinking. There’s nothing wrong with using “information lite” sources as a first word on something; just don’t assume they are the last word.
Yes, it’s work and it will make your head hurt. Make friends with the dictionary, and don’t be afraid to ask teachers for help. (That’s what they pay us for.)
This criterion is a bit rubbery. If you’re working on a scientific paper, the most recent stuff is usually the best. Some truth, however, isn’t that date-sensitive. One example might be critical analysis of a short story by Poe: fifty year old material might be just fine. And obviously, if you are writing something about historical perspective, you’ll want something from the right era.
This one is difficult, especially for undergraduates. Some sources, for example politicians and sites such as InfoWars, Breitbart, and Fox News are only interested in pushing their agenda, getting more viewers, and making people angry; you can’t learn anything truthful from them. Others are speaking outside their field of expertise. (One memorable example was the television evangelist who promoted a nutritional supplement; he may have known a lot about the Bible, but that didn’t say anything about his knowledge of nutrition.)
One quick question to ask is whether the source is anonymous (a red flag) and whether the source ever got edited. These aren’t water-tight tests. Some anonymous sources are excellent and fair, and some edited items are wildly biased. But it’s a beginning.
A common error is to assume that anything on the Internet is true. Not so! There is absolutely no filter that evaluates whether an Internet source is true—all you need to start writing something is a valid credit card and enough money to pay for a domain name and some server space. If you publish to Blogspot, Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube, you don’t even need that much; all you need is a way to borrow a computer. Nobody will ever check up on whether you are telling the truth.
Generally, you are on safer ground if you are working with information from major newspapers, news networks, universities, and book publishers. They have a vested interest in presenting credible information and protecting their reputations. (As an example, major newspapers such as the New York Times or Washington Post don’t publish an account of some event—earthquake, flood, or military attack—until they have four independent reports that agree.)
Some of it is pretty obvious. You can just assume that any website that begins with Your Doctor is Lying to You! or Eat This Weird Fruit and Never Forget Anything Again! is off the edge of scientific truth. Nobody in the health industry has a vested interest in keeping you from the Miracle of Mangosteen Juice—so perhaps it won’t cure warts, cancer, impotence and/or stuttering.
Some bias is a lot harder to detect, particularly if they are pandering to your own bias. Generally, pseudo-science reveals itself with several trademarks:
This one is difficult for a beginning researcher like yourself. As a starting point, if several sources (not cherry-picked to support your point) agree, then you are on safer ground than if you find exactly one that is supporting an idea and everyone else is disagreeing. Yes, this is an argument for doing a research paper with several sources. If your big idea is only present in one reading, you should ask some serious questions.
A common error has gotten the humorous name Argumentum ad Google. It’s the error of assuming that a website with a higher Google rating is a better, more reliable source. Websites get higher Google ratings because they do a better job of managing subheads (such as my The Community subhead), repeat key words, have a lot of “good” links in and out, and (sometimes) just pay Google some money.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by Ashland University.
Revised 8/6/21 • Page author: Curtis Allen • e-mail: email@example.com.