Evaluating Sources
Sometimes, the first source that shows up on our search results is great. It’s relevant and recent, and it’s written by someone who really knows what they are talking about. Much more often, however, the first source is not actually reliable. And sometimes it can be hard to tell.
Part of being a critical thinker is learning to evaluate your sources. Arguments built on lousy sources won’t hold up, so you need to know if you are using sources that are reliable. It’s not enough to find a source that addresses your topic. It has to be a good source.
So how can you tell the difference between a good source and a not-so-good source?
You may have heard of the CRAAP test for evaluating sources: Currency, Reliability, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. This system, developed by Molly Beestrum, asks you to look at how recent your source is (and how much that matters), whether the source is too one-sided or lacking sources of its own, who the author is and what their credentials are, and what the source is trying to accomplish. These are all excellent areas for investigation.
Graphic Representation of CRAAP
This system is really useful, but I recommend rearranging the order. I treat “authority” as the most important criterion for determining the credibility of a source. If the source doesn’t have authority, move on to another source. If the information is sound, another source with more authority will also discuss those ideas. And if you only find the ideas in one source, consider that a red flag.
Here are some of the red flags to look for:
- Authority
- You cannot find an author and the organization is questionable.
- The author has experience or credentials, but their credentials aren’t relevant to the material they are writing about.
- The site is a .com or .net, and seems to be more focused on selling you something than on providing accurate information.
- Currency
- The site was published before recent events relevant to your topic.
- The sources used by the site are too old for your topic.
- Relevance/Intended Audience
- The information isn’t really related to your topic, even if the information itself seems good.
- The information is presented in a simplistic way or ignores complexities that you know exist.
- The site is written for children or adolescents and may be oversimplifying the information in ways that aren’t appropriate for college-level work.
- Accuracy
- You can only find the information in this one source.
- When you check the sources, they don’t seem to be saying what the site says they do.
- Purpose/Objectivity
- The site has an identifiable conflict of interest. In particular, examine any advertising on the site. Would the revenue stream interfere with objectivity and balance in the presentation of information?
- The site is trying to make people angry or arouse other strong emotions.
- The site provides arguments on only one side of an issue or presents opposing arguments unfairly or in too simplistic a fashion.
Use