FALLIBLE FOX

Parts of the MAPS Handbook offer foundational tools needed to address some of the points noted in this graphic. For example, in assessing fake news, the infographic suggests you "check your biases." However, the graphic doesn't help you grasp what that means or how to proceed. To get a better idea of what you might actually do as you "check your biases," recall the MAPS Metacognition module. Considering some of the key learning from that module, one of the things to remember is that we're often driven to believe things we read that cohere with what we already believe or want to believe. Thus, we're more likely to believe in the veracity of a website that that coheres with our prior beliefs about the world. That's not what we ought to be doing—we want to consider the veracity of any source independently of whether it supports one's worldview.

 

Consider how badly you want to believe that what you're reading is or is not a legitimate source of information. Also remember that there are many types of biases and many ways any given bias can manifest, so keep in mind what you explored more broadly in the metacognition module. In short, to have any chance at addressing the biases bit of the infographic, it only makes sense that you first need to have some idea of which biases may be active and some tricks for holding them in check.

 

The infographic above also suggests to "consider the source" of the piece you're reading, which is a reference to the venue where the material is published. Subsequent sections in the People & Context module in the MAPS Handbook are here to flesh out your understanding of what you might actually do as you investigate.

​

In evaluating the veracity of a piece, I think the most important points in the graphic are (1) consider the source, (2) read beyond, and (3) check the author. If you have good reason to believe the source (e.g., the website) is legitimate, that other legitimate sources say similar things to this source—or at least don't tend to outright contradict the one you're evaluating—and that the author is reputable, you're more likely to be reading something of substance.

​

Lateral Reading

​

The linked video will introduce you to the concept of lateral reading, a crucial skill to support a more complete view of digital media. Lateral reading moves us away from reading websites vertically (from top to bottom) like we read books. When we read in this "normal" way, it can be hard to distinguish reliable from unreliable information—we can be deceived by nice logos, good writing, professional looking imagery, etc.

 

By contrast, when we're reading laterally, we pause our reading to look elsewhere when it's reasonable to do so. Leave the site and open a new tab (you can have a bunch going at once) to look into what other sources are saying about the subject and/or about the initial source you happened to be reading. 

​

It's called "lateral" reading because instead of reading up and down, you're moving sort of sideways, from site to site or tab to tab. It's both a tendency (i.e., are you actually going to do it?) and a skill that must be practiced. That's because it's possible to read laterally in ways that range in effectiveness—it all depends on one's ability to effectively search for information (for more on searching for information effectively, check out the MAPS Source Material module).

 

Regardless of your initial ability to read laterally, practicing lateral reading will help you to develop the habit or intuition to search for information about the author, publication venue, and any other connections between the source and funders, audience, etc. The more you do it with the intent to uncover the truth (e.g., about the topic and about the legitimacy of the source), the stronger the skill will become.

​

So, before moving on from this section (vertically), watch the linked video on lateral reading (i.e., read this site laterally). Did you do that already? If yes, you're on the right track!

 

SIFT: Four Moves for Separating Truth From Fiction

​

Mike Caulfield's SIFT model provides a more organized approach to distinguishing factual content. You can read about it here and find an online course introducing SIFT here, but briefly, it involves the following steps:

​

S – Stop: Before you start reading, stop and "ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is (not just in your own mind—what do other reputable people think?). If you don’t have that information, use the other moves to get a sense of what you’re looking at. Don’t read it or share media until you know what it is" (Caulfield, 2019).

​

I – Investigate: If, upon briefly considering the source, you aren't sure about the publication or author, it's time to investigate a bit (see also lateral reading section above). Is the piece written by an award winning scientist in a relevant field or a journalist who writes more broadly? Is the publication trustworthy and relatively unbiased? Make sure you're also considering where you get the info about the author and publication—can you trust those sources?

​

At the same time, consider how deep you really need to go given your goals. Are you reading for enjoyment, for an assignment, or to inform yourself about an important health issue? The latter two might demand more careful investigation.

​

F – Find better coverage: If you're at all questioning the legitimacy of the source, "your best bet might not be to investigate the source, but to go out and find the best source you can on this topic, or, just as importantly, to scan multiple sources and see what the expert consensus seems to be" (Caulfield, 2019). Afterwards, you can always go back to reading the source that originally came your way. Just remember, often we shouldn't care particularly much about the article itself, but getting the most reliable information about the subject. There may be a better source out there.

​

T – Trace claims, quotes, and media back to the original context: If a podcaster like Joe Rogan or Andrew Huberman tells you something interesting about octopus intelligence or vitamin supplements, it should be clear that they're likely not the original source for the findings/claims. If it's important for you to get the truth about vitamin supplements, you need to look into where Joe's information is coming from and whether what he says aligns with that source (not to mention whether that source aligns with the scientific consensus). The same goes for articles and videos. Usually, if it's a scientific claim, that original source will be a research article (and, if not, there's often good reason to be concerned!). See the Source Material module in MAPS for more support on exploring and understanding the scientific literature.

​​​

Introduction to College Research (A free textbook to support your information literacy)

​

This free online textbook (i.e., an Open Educational Resource; OER) provides in-depth chapters on disinformation and fact checking, among a broader range of other topics aimed at helping with academic research. For those interested in going that extra step toward a fuller view of checking sources in the broader context of post-secondary research, this is a good place to start.

​

For our purposes here, exploring the first 3 units in the text—the age of algorithms, disinformation, and fact-checking—isn't a bad idea.

​

Assessing whether you can trust what's being published at a particular venue or what's being said by an author is more complicated than just determining whether it's fake or not. The rest of this module will consider more closely other information about the author and publication.

​