Evaluating Sources

​EVALUATING SOURCES
CRAAP TEST

By Elizabeth Rauscher

Open Ended

How can you tell if a source is credible enough? When scrolling on TikTok or Instagram, which videos do you believe and which do you know are fake? What does "fake" mean to you?

We live in an unprecedented era of information abundance. Every day, millions of articles, videos, posts, and podcasts are published online. While this gives us access to incredible knowledge, it also means we're constantly bombarded with information of varying quality and reliability

​

​why evaluating sources is important

False information can now spread faster than ever before. A misleading headline can be shared thousands of times on social media within minutes, often reaching more people than the correction that follows hours or days later. By the time fact-checkers respond, the damage is already done.

​

​the speed of misinformation

Open Ended

Why is it significant that corrections often come "hours or days later" than the original false information? How does this timing affect public opinion?

Social media algorithms show us content similar to what we've previously engaged with, creating "echo chambers" where we only see information that confirms our existing beliefs. This makes it harder to encounter diverse perspectives and easier to accept biased or false information as truth.

​

​echo chambers and filter bubles

​How Modern Media Manipulates Us

​Clickbait Headlines

​What it is: Sensational, emotionally charged headlines designed to get clicks

Example: "You Won't BELIEVE What This Celebrity Did!" or "This Simple Trick Will Change Your Life Forever!"

Why it works: Creates curiosity and urgency, making you feel like you're missing out if you don't click

​emotional manipulations

What it is: Content designed to trigger strong emotional responses like anger, fear, or outrage (RAGE BAIT)

Example: Articles with titles like "SHOCKING: What They Don't Want You to Know!"

Why it works: Emotional content is more likely to be shared and remembered than neutral information

​confirmation bias

What it is: Presenting information that confirms what people already believe

Example: Showing only statistics that support one side of a political argument

Why it works: People naturally prefer information that validates their existing opinions

​visual manipulation

What it is: Using misleading images, graphs, or videos to support false claims

Example: Using a photo from a different event or time period to illustrate a current story

Why it works: Visuals are processed faster than text and can create false memories

​algorithmic amplification

What it is: Social media algorithms that promote controversial or engaging content

Example: Videos that generate lots of comments (even negative ones) get shown to more people

Why it works: Controversy drives engagement, which increases ad revenue for platforms

false urgency and fomo

What it is: Creating artificial time pressure or fear of missing out

Example: "Breaking news" alerts for non-urgent stories or "limited time" offers

Why it works: Urgency bypasses critical thinking and encourages immediate action

influencer deception

What it is: Paid promotions disguised as genuine recommendations

Example: Influencers promoting products without clearly disclosing sponsorship

Why it works: Young people trust peer recommendations more than traditional advertising

Open Ended

How can you tell the difference between authentic content and content created primarily for likes, views, or sponsorships?

Multiple Choice

What media manipulation is being used here in this false statement?

• Visual Manipulation

• Influencer Deception

• Rage Baiting

 YES: A video showing Piotr Szczerek, CEO of the Polish company Drogbruk, snatching a signed hat that tennis star Kamil Majchrzak intended to give to a young child next to him in the stands at the U.S. Open on Aug. 28 is genuine. 

 NO: A viral apology statement attributed to Szczerek saying “Life is first come, first served” and claiming that insulting a public figure could lead to legal action is fake. 

 YES: Szczerek issued an official apology for his “hurtful actions,” saying he gave the hat back to the young fan and that he never made the previous viral apology statements. 

 YES: Fabricating offensive false apology statements is a favorite trick of online trolls. 

Takeaway: When a topic stirs up outrage online, expect trolls to exploit that anger by sharing misleading or entirely fabricated content.

​

Multiple Choice

What type of manipulation is being used in this false, viral post?

• Emotional Manipulation

• Visual Manipulation

• False Sense of Urgency

• Influencer Deception

 NO: Texas did not pass a law in June banning Mountain Dew.

 YES: A Texas law that went into effect on Sept. 1 requires manufacturers to add warning labels to food products that contain certain ingredients, including Yellow 5, a synthetic dye.

 YES: The standard flavor of Mountain Dew includes Yellow 5.

 NO: Mountain Dew is not banned internationally but the version sold in many countries differs from the American formulation to avoid using prohibited ingredients.

Takeaway: Social media posts rarely contain the full context of a news story, especially when the topic is complex, like the details of a public health bill.

NO: This is not a genuine photograph of former NFL quarterback Peyton Manning consoling a child outside of a fancy gala.

YES: This image was created with artificial intelligence tools.

YES: This story is fictional and designed to generate engagement on social media.

★ Takeaway

Stories that elicit strong emotional reactions tend to get more engagement on social media. This is frequently exploited by clickbait accounts that prioritize traffic over facts.

NO: This is not a genuine photograph of former NFL quarterback Peyton Manning consoling a child outside of a fancy gala.

YES: This image was created with artificial intelligence tools.

YES: This story is fictional and designed to generate engagement on social media.

★ Takeaway

Images and videos depicting unusual animals can rack up millions of views on social media. This content may elicit a strong emotional response, such as a feeling of awe, which can hinder critical thinking and make people more susceptible to falsehoods.

​Follow the CRAAP test to check the credibility f your sources.

so how can we combat this manipulation?

Currency examines when the information was published or last updated.

Questions to Ask:

- When was this information published?

- Has it been updated recently?

- Are the links and references current?

- Is timeliness important for your topic?

Example: A 2019 article about COVID-19 treatments would be outdated, while a 2024 article would be more current and reliable for understanding current medical practices.

​

​Currency

Relevance determines if the information relates to your research question and is appropriate for your academic level.

Questions to Ask:

- Does this information answer your research question?

- Is it written at an appropriate academic level?

- Would you cite this source in your research?

- Does it provide unique insights or duplicate other sources?

Example: A children's book about photosynthesis might be too basic for a 12th-grade biology research paper, while a peer-reviewed scientific journal would be more relevant

​

relevance

Authority examines the credentials and expertise of the author or organization.

Questions to Ask:

- Who is the author?

- What are their qualifications and credentials?

- What organization published this information?

- Is the author affiliated with a reputable institution?

- Can you contact the author?

Example: An article about climate change written by Dr. Sarah Johnson, a climatologist with a PhD from MIT and 20 years of research experience, has strong authority compared to an anonymous blog post.

​

​authority

Accuracy evaluates whether the information is factual, well-researched, and supported by evidence.

Questions to Ask:

- Are sources cited and verifiable?

- Is the information supported by evidence?

- Are there spelling or grammatical errors?

- Does the information contradict other reliable sources?

- Has the information been peer-reviewed?

Example: A Wikipedia article with numerous citations to scholarly sources demonstrates accuracy, while a website with no citations or sources lacks credibility.

​

​accuracy

Purpose examines the reason behind creating the information and potential bias.

Questions to Ask:

- What is the purpose of this information?

- Is the author trying to inform, persuade, sell, or entertain?

- Are there obvious biases or conflicts of interest?

- Is the information presented objectively?

- Who is the intended audience?

Example: A pharmaceutical company's website promoting their new medication has a clear commercial purpose and potential bias, while an independent medical journal's review of the same medication aims to inform healthcare professionals objectively.

​

​purpose

Match

Match the term with the definition

• when the information was published or last updated

• if the information relates to your research question and is appropriate for your academic level.

• the credentials and expertise of the author or organization

• whether the information is factual, well-researched, and supported by evidence

• the reason behind creating the information and potential bias

Currency

Relevance

Authority

Accuracy

Purpose

• Currency

• Relevance

• Authority

• Accuracy

• Purpose

Multiple Choice

Which of the following is the BEST example of evaluating authority?

•  Checking when an article was published

• Verifying the author's credentials and expertise

• Determining if the information is relevant to your topic

• Looking for spelling errors

Multiple Choice

A website about nutrition written by a certified dietitian with 15 years of experience demonstrates strong:

• Currency

• Relevance

• Authority

• Purpose

Multiple Choice

A pharmaceutical company's website promoting their new drug would likely score LOW on which CRAAP component?

• Currency

• Relevance

• Accuracy

• Purpose

Multiple Choice

Which of the following sources would likely have the HIGHEST accuracy score?

• A personal blog post by a well known politician

• A peer-reviewed scientific journal article

• A social media post by an influencer

• An anonymous website labelled "truth finder"

Multiple Choice

Which is a red flag when evaluating a source?

• The author has a PhD

• The article was published last year

• There are no sources cited

• The information is relevant to your topic

Open Ended

Now that you know how media influences you, how about how you influence others? How do you decide what to post on your own social media accounts? What factors influence these decisions?