Research help

SIFT is a set of four fact-checking strategies that guide you through quickly making a decision about whether or not a source is worthy of your attention and trust.

SIFT was created by Mike Caufield, a digital literacy expert at WSU.

Before you read or share an article or video, STOP!​

Be aware of your emotional response to the headline or information in the article. Headlines are often meant to get clicks, and will do so by causing the reader to have a strong emotional response.*

Before sharing, consider:
     - What you already know about the topic. ​
     - What you know about the author, publisher, publication, or website? Do you know it's reputation?

If you don't know much yet, use the following fact-checking moves to get a better sense of what you’re looking at.

The main takeaway: Don’t read, share, or use the source in your research until you know what it is and you can verify it is reliable.

* This is a particularly important step, considering what we know about the attention economy - social media, news organizations, and other digital platforms purposely promote sensational, divisive, and outrage-inducing content that emotionally hijacks our attention in order to keep us "engaged” with their sites (clicking, liking, commenting, sharing). Stop and check your emotions before engaging.

Video: The Stanford Experiment (3m14).
What do professional fact-checkers do to quickly determine if a site should be trusted? Here's a real life example.

The next step before sharing is to Investigate the Source.

Take a moment to look up the author and source publishing the information.
     - What can you find about the author/website creators? ​
     - What is their mission? Do they have vested interests? ​Would their assessment be biased?
     - Do they have authority in the area?​

Use lateral reading. When investigating a source, fact-checkers read “laterally” across many websites, rather than digging deep (reading “vertically”) into the one source they are evaluating. That is, they don’t spend much time on the source itself, but instead they quickly get off the page and see what others have said about the source. Go beyond the "About Us" section on the organization's website and see what other, trusted sources say about the source.​ Use Google or Wikipedia to investigate the source.

Hovering is another technique to learn more about who is sharing information, especially on social media platforms such as Twitter.

Video: Investigate the Source (2m44s).
Note how Wikipedia can be used to quickly get useful information about publications, organizations, and authors.

The next step is to Find Better Coverage.

In other words, locate other sources that may or may not support the original claim. Again, use lateral reading to see if you can find other sources corroborating the same information or disputing it.​
     - What coverage is available on the topic?
     - Keep track of trusted news sources. Built a list of your trusted, reliable sources.

Many times, fact checkers have already looked into the claims. These fact-checkers are often nonpartisan, nonprofit websites that try to increase public knowledge and understanding by fact checking claims to see if they are based on fact or if they are biased/not supported by evidence.

Video: Look for Trusted Sources (4m10s)
"Trade up" for a higher quality source that includes trusted reporting or analysis on that same claim.

CCC Librarian's recommended fact checking websites:

The final step is to Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to their Original Context.

When an article references a quote from an expert or results of a research study, try to locate the original source of the information. Look at the quote / claim in its original context to get a sense of whether the version you saw was accurately presented.
     - Was the claim, quote, or media fairly represented?
     - Does the extracted information support the original claims in the research? ​
     - Is information being cherry-picked to support an agenda or a bias?​
     - Is information being taken out of context?​

Remember, headlines, blog posts, or tweets may sensationalize facts to get more attention or clicks. ​Re-reporting may omit, misinterpret, or select certain facts to support biased claims. If the claim is taken from a source who took it from another source, important facts and contextual information can be left out. Make sure to read the claims in the original context in which they were presented.

When in doubt, contact an expert - like a CCC librarian!​

Video: Find the Original Source (1m33). 
Learn about re-reporting versus original reporting, and learn a quick tip: going “upstream” to find the original reporting source.

Content adapted from "The SIFT Method" (in Introduction to College Research by Walter D. Butler, Aloha Sargent, Kelsey Smith) and Evaluating Resources and Misinformation (UChicago Library), all licensed under CC BY 4.0 / a derivative from the original work by Mike Caulfield.