SIFT is a method of quickly assessing the likely reliability of an information source, whether that source is a blog post, a news article, a video, or any piece of evidence.
It is not meant to be exhaustive, but to be a quick and practical tool. Use it to quickly decide if a source is worth the effort of a more thorough evaluation (such as the CRAAP Test method).
S is for Stop
The first move is the simplest. Stop and ask yourself:
- Do I know and trust the source (website, magazine, author, etc.) of this information?
- If you don't, stop reading and go to the next step, "Investigate the source".
I is for Investigate the source
Find out about your source before you read it.
- Search online for information about your source. What do other sites or authors say about your source? How does Wikipedia or another general informational site describe the website, magazine, or author? Does the source have expertise in a certain area? Does it have a particular slant, agenda, or purpose?
- Once you find some context, you can skip to the last step, "Trace claims back to their original context".
- You don't have to do an exhaustive investigation, but you want some context before you start reading.
- Check in with yourself to see if you're getting overwhelmed or spending too much time trying to investigate this source. If you are, it might be time to go on to the next step, "Find trusted coverage".
F is for Find trusted coverage
If you can't find out more about the source, or find that it's not reliable, move away from the particular source you're reading and try to find a difference source that addresses the same claims from your original source.
Think about it like this: it's usually not the particular source you care about, it's the information, or the claim the source makes. You want to know, is the claim true or false? Does the claim represent a consensus viewpoint, or is it the subject of disagreement?
- Start a new search, focusing on the claim of the original source. You're looking for a different, more trusted, more in-depth source that covers the topic or claim.
- For example: if you find an article that says koalas have just been declared extinct from the Save the Koalas Foundation, you might open up a new tab in your browser and find a better source that covers this same topic, or you might scan multiple sources to see what the consensus seems to be.
- Finding a consensus doesn't mean you have to agree with it. But understanding the context and history of a claim will help you better evaluate it.
T is for Trace claims, quotes, and media back to the original context
A lot of things you find on the internet have been stripped of context. Often only a part of a story is told, or a single claim is pulled from a scientific paper, making it very misleading.
- In these cases, try to trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in its original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented. Often there are clues in the source, such as a researcher's name, the date the original research was published, or the title of the journal where the research was published.
- Ways to establish context:
- Investigate the source: Who is the author, speaker or publisher? What's their expertise? What's their agenda? What's their record of fairness or accuracy?
- Is the claim broadly accepted, rejected, or something in-between? By scanning for other coverage you can see the expert consensus on a claim, learn the history around it, and ultimately land on a better source.
- What is the time frame of the evidence? Whether it's a quote or a video or a scientific finding -- sometimes it helps to reconstruct the original context in which the photo was taken or research claim made. It can look quite different in context!
A note about "fake news" also known as Disinformation or Misinformation:
In some cases these techniques will show you claims are outright wrong, or that sources are legitimately "bad actors" who are trying to deceive you (this is called "disinformation"). But even when material is not intentionally deceptive (this is called "misinformation") the moves do something just as important:
They reestablish the context that the web so often strips away, allowing for more fruitful engagement with all digital information.
SIFT and its description were created by Mike Caulfield and spelled out in his course "Check, Please".
