Evaluating Sources
Photo credit: http://dobrador.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/saw-on-internet-must-be-true-great-white-shark-horse.jpg
Here's the deal--some sources of information are more credible than others. We all know that, otherwise we'd believe the crazy lady next door when she insists that aliens built the pyramids. It's not too hard to parse out the truly ridiculous from the probably-true in real life, but what about when you're writing a paper, when most of the information you read sounds like it could be right? How do you go about figuring out which sources are worth while and which ones are worth the same as Kim Kardashian's attempt at a novel? (The hardback sells on Amazon for literally one cent, if you were wondering.)
Unfortunately, the answer requires thinking. Lots of thinking. And Mountain Dew, if you're anything like me. Maybe a lil nap in the middle there. But mostly thinking, and mostly thinking about all the different aspects of a source, such as purpose, credibility, currency (current-ness? Is that a word?), and medium.
Purpose
Webpages and articles are written for different reasons. Some of them want to provide you with accurate information in order to better inform you on a particular subject; some of them want to convince you that everyone in a position of power is secretly a shapeshifting reptile bent on enslaving all of humanity (for real, people think this). Understanding why the article was written can reveal a lot, including potential biases or shortcomings. If it seems like the article is trying to sell you something, or trying to totally squash one particular person/product/idea/theory, you might want to think twice before using it.
Audience also plays in a big part in the purpose. Say you have two articles about a deformity in Kanye West's brain: one written for neuroscientists and one written for people standing in the check out line at Walmart. The one aimed at scientists is going to have more nonsense jargon and sciencey terms ("...located in the frontoparietal cortex anterior to the..."), whereas the main market article will use broader language and explain background stuff ("...in a part of the brain that controls personality..."). Understand who the author is talking to, and you can guess what kind of information is likely to be in the article, which will help you figure out where that information will fit in with what you're writing about.
Some questions to ask yourself when considering an articles purpose:
Who is supposed to read this article?
Is this article trying to educate, entertain, or sell something?
If it's selling something, how can you separate fact from ad?
Does the reason behind the article indicate any potential gaps or inaccuracies in the information?
Credibility
Figuring out who wrote the article is especially important now that we get so much information online. It's easy for someone with no expertise to put something online and claim it as fact, and even easier to read something like that and think, "This sounds like it could be true." You need to be able to tell when somebody is talking about something they have no business talking about, like Marilyn Monroe touting the benefits of eating nothing but warm milk and raw eggs for breakfast (chased by a hot fudge sundae for dessert).
Marilyn Monroe was not a nutritionist. Raw eggs are gross. Don't eat raw eggs.
Questions to ask when considering the author(s):
Are they involved in this field?
Are they doctors or other kind of experts? What are their credentials?
Do they work for a company that might be biased?
Do they cite their sources?
Another question might be whether the author is listed at all. Often times, especially in online sources, there won't be an author listed. That's not necessarily a bad thing--many of the sites I consult for grammar and writing don't identify an author--but it should make you think twice.
In lieu of an actual author, consider the website or publication. Is it affiliated with a university or other institution? Look at the URL--does it end in .com, .gov, .edu, or .org? The last three are usually pretty good sources (though you should still keep your eyes open for biases), but .com is harder because literally anyone can buy a .com address. (See shark-horse above.)
University-sponsored websites can be a goldmine, especially for subjects that have a lot of background information/research. Pretty much every university in existence has a web page for writing advice. A quick Google search on any topic (history, science, art, etc.) is likely to turn up at least a few hits from universities whose professors put papers or lecture notes online. These are free and easy to access. The only downfall is that university websites don't always have the most up-to-date information on fields or concepts that are just starting to take off. The university may be involved in research on those subjects, but it's less likely that they have a PowerPoint online with funny pictures for you to look at. If you have a subject like this, journal articles are going to be your best bet.
Keep in mind that whoever is sponsoring the article (the company or institution) is paying for it, so they might have a vested interest in what it says. A company that sells chicken would want someone to write articles about how healthy chicken is, whether or not that's totally true. An independent research company looking into a way to turn cow farts into a viable energy source would want articles talking about the benefits of cow power (cower? No, wait, that's already a word) and the downfalls of other types of energy.
(Cow only marginally related.)
Even well-known, established companies can be biased. The Huffington Post is a famous news source, but they're also famous for ignoring science and touting ridiculous home remedies over actual medical care (although they're not as bad about this as they used to be).
When in doubt, do some more digging. Nobody ever died of too much research. (Except for maybe Marie Curie.) (Sorry, that got dark fast.)
Accuracy
Speaking of digging, not everything you dig up is going to be gold. Some of it will be fool's gold, and some of it will be a bunch of yellow bottle caps stuck together. Or gold like Flava Flav's grillz. Okay, forget the digging thing. The point is, some of what you find will be valuable information, and some of it, not so much.
How can you tell the difference? Try asking these questions:
Has anyone corroborated this information? (Are other people saying the same thing?)
Are these other sources credible?
If it's a scientific paper, what experiments were done, and were they done well?
What kinds of sources are they citing? (Primary or secondary? Find examples of each here.)
How much evidence is provided?
Is there anything misleading?
Does the logic seem sound, or do they draw any conclusions that don't make sense?
If you don't have accurate information, you don't have a good paper. That's the simple truth.
Look for places that cite primary sources--firsthand evidence like an original text, song, or piece of art, experimental data, historical documents, etc.--over secondary resources that only discuss the original thing. This helps you show exactly where your information came from, which helps with your credibility.
Currency
No, not that kind of currency.
Currency as in being current, up-to-date, in the know, "hip" and "jiggy with it". Articles should reflect current thoughts and findings. An article that is credible but outdated might have misinformation due to advances made since it was written.
Ask yourself:
Is this article recent?
Does it reflect the most up-to-date thoughts or findings?
If it's older, does the information hold up over time?
Say you're reading an article about Kanye's fashion escapades written in 2009. Such an article wouldn't have any relevant information that happened after 2009, which means all it would be able to tell you would be about a shoe called Air Yeezys and a cancelled fashion line, and not anything about his somehow moderately successful Yeezy Season line. Even though the article was complete at the time it was written, it's now missing important information.
It's okay to use a source that's not completely up-to-date as long as you also use more current sources. That being said, try to keep outdated sources to a minimum.
Medium
Photo credit: http://www.psychics.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-crystal-ball/
Again, not that kind of medium. (But can we appreciate that I got this from Psychics.com? There is literally a Psychics.com. What a time to be alive.)
Bad wordplay notwithstanding, the medium of the information is important. Is it from a website, a newspaper, a journal? Each mode of delivery offers unique challenges. Generally, teachers prefer information from journals or websites associated with an institution over some kind of independent website, or even over some news sources (see the whole credibility thing above).
Especially in science writing, having peer-reviewed journals is important because those have had other experts in the field say, "Yeah, this is all right." Some journal article databases are available through the library. Sometimes, the authors will have copies of the paper available on their personal or university-affiliated website for free use, so be sure to check.
There's also another type of website that you're all familiar with--one, because you use it all the time, and two, because teachers tell you to shy away from it like vampires from a garlic wreath: Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is unreliable to use as a source because many different people can edit the information provided, sometimes changing it to be inaccurate or biased. Cite that, and kiss your credibility goodbye.* However, it can be a good place to start looking for information.
Almost all of its articles have footnotes; scroll to the bottom, and you can find out what sources the authors were using for their information. You can use these sources for your research. Wikipedia might also give you an idea of what aspects of the topic are worth discussing; look at the section headings in their table of contents and compare them to what you're learning about. Are your focuses different from theirs? Do they have any topics that you think would be good for your paper?
The take home message: be critical of your sources. Don't just take what they say at face value--question them, explore them. That way, you can be confident in the information you're using for your research.
*Note: I used Wikipedia for some of my information about Kanye West's fashion career. I did that because 1) this isn't a formal research paper, and 2) I don't care about being credible when it comes to Kanye.
References:
"Harvard Guide to Using Sources." Harvard. Harvard University, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
"Kanye West." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
"Primary and Secondary Sources." Ithaca College Library. Ithaca College, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
Sass, Cynthia. "Celebrity Diets: Marilyn Monroe's Diet and Weight ..." Shape. Meredith Corporation, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
"Source Evaluation Checklist - Digital Literacy Resource." Cornell University Digital Literary Resource. Cornell Information Technologies, 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
"The Research Assignment." Online Guide to Writing and Research. UMUC, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
"Writing Guides." The Writing Studio. Colorado State University, n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
