Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

7.6: Research on the Internet

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    244147

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    Many of the techniques you use to improve your library searches can help you online too. Keeping phrases together with quotation marks works on many sites, and you can use the minus sign (-) to filter out search terms you’d prefer not be included. Date range filters and other limiters are available too, helping you narrow your search down even further.

    Finding information online is relatively simple, so the challenge researchers face is determining what information is useful and whether it’s credible. A quick assessment is easy, and here are a few questions to guide you:

    • Is the information current relative to your needs? Information in a rapidly-changing field like science or medicine can quickly become outdated. Even social science research is time-sensitive. Laws and demographics can change quickly, and you’ll want to be sure the information you’re using is up-to-date.
    • Does the information address your topic? You may not find any single source that directly addresses all facets of your approach to a topic. You can, however, use information from multiple sources to support different parts of your work.
    • Who is the source of information? The advice of an expert in a subject may be more valuable than the opinion of a layperson. On the other hand, a salesperson may know a lot about their product, but their perspective is informed by their goal of making a sale. With this in mind, you may ask yourself why was this information created?

    The trustworthiness of information you find on the Internet can be harder yet to discern. While a source may have a current date listed, seem to offer relevant information, and claim to be an expert, it’s important to go beyond the information they give about themselves and verify that you can believe that they are honestly representing themselves and the information they offer.

    Some advice on how to effectively evaluate online information is offered by Washington State University Professor Michael Caulfield (2017), suggests four steps from his online textbook Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers:

    1. Check for previous work: Look around to see if someone else has already fact-checked the claim or provided a synthesis of research. Dubious claims can quickly be debunked with a Google search. Some websites that are dedicated to fact-checking include FactCheck.org, Politifact, and Snopes. The first two are focused on political claims, while the third addresses stories from various sources.
    2. Go upstream to the source: Go “upstream” to the source of the claim. Most web content is not original. Get to the original source to understand the trustworthiness of the information. You can achieve this by identifying where the information originated. If an article is describing a scientific study, tracking down the original study may reveal that its significant findings weren’t accurately represented.
    3. Read laterally: Once you get to the source of a claim, read what other people say about the source (publication, author, etc.). The truth is in the network. While some sources may claim to be experts in their subject areas, it may turn out that other experts in the field consider that source questionable.
    4. Circle back: If you get lost, hit dead ends, or find yourself going down an increasingly confusing rabbit hole, back up and start over knowing what you know now. You’re likely to take a more informed path with different search terms and better decisions. If you feel that you are overwhelmed by the amount of information, or can’t tell if sources are actually still relevant to your topic, it might be time to start over, or seek assistance.

    There are many “tests” or “sets of criteria” that you can find in textbooks and on websites for deciding if a website is reliable. Words and concepts such as currency, authority, accessing only certain domain names (.org or .edu as opposed to .com), and inclusion of a bibliography or references section are common. Another is writing style: does the writing style show bias (such as use of name-calling or loaded language) or poor grammar and editing? These are all good signs that your site may have an agenda beyond fair presentation of facts. However, your site may seem to pass muster on first sight but not really provide what you need. That is why we have included the advice from Dr. Caulfield here. For more information on this topic, check out:

    Hapgood.us

    Chronicle.com

    Papers.ssrn.com

    One common source that many students have questions about using is Wikipedia. Most of us use Wikipedia or similar sites to look up the answers to pressing questions such as “Was Val Kilmer in the film Willow?” or “When is the next solar eclipse?” However, it is unlikely that your instructor will be satisfied with your using evidence from Wikipedia (or other Wiki-type sites).

    There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that Wikipedia is, like a dictionary, a basic reference source. Like a printed encyclopedia, it is used for basic or general information about a topic, but this means that it is not suitable for serious college-level research. Additionally, because anyone on Wikipedia (or any Wiki site) can update information, there is no guarantee that what you read will be up-to-date or correct. While Wikipedia and its editors make every effort to maintain the accuracy of entries, with millions of pages on the site, that isn’t always possible. Sometimes Wikipedia pages display inaccurate information, including hoax articles or prank edits. These are typically corrected quickly by editors who notice a change has been made and fact-check to verify whether the information is true.

    When it comes down to it, Wikipedia is a good place to go to obtain basic information or general knowledge about your subject. You can use the references at the bottom of the page (if there are any) to look for information elsewhere. But saying to an audience, “my source for the information in this speech is Wikipedia” will probably do little to convince your audience that you are knowledgeable and have done adequate research for the speech.

    Keeping in mind the considerations discussed in this section will help you select online sources for use in your work. They will also help you as you navigate the breadth of information on and offline in your daily life.

    Methods for Evaluating Sources Online

    Library Clinician from University of Chicago, Kaitlyn Van Kampen (2025) suggest the SIFT and CRAAP methods for evaluating sources in her guide for evaluating sources:

    The SIFT Method

    sift-infographic.png

    The SIFT method is an evaluation strategy developed by digital literacy expert, Mike Caulfield, to help determine whether online content can be trusted for credible or reliable sources of information. All SIFT information on this page is adapted from his materials with a CC BY 4.0 license.

    Determining if resources are credible is challenging. Use the SIFT method to help you analyze information, especially news or other online media.

    S - Stop

    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 source. Do you know it's reputation?

    Before moving forward or sharing, use the other three moves: Investigate the Source, Find Better Coverage, and Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media back to the Original Context.

    I - Investigate the Source

    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. Go beyond the 'About Us' section on the organization's website and see what other, trusted sources say about the source.​ You can use Google or Wikipedia to investigate the source.

    Hovering(opens in new window) is another technique to learn more about who is sharing information, especially on social media platforms such as Twitter.

    The Stanford Experiment

    F - Find Better Coverage

    The next step is to Find Better Coverage or 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.

    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.

    FactCheck.org​

    Snopes.com​

    Washington Post Fact Checker​

    PolitiFact

    T - Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to their Original Context

    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, it is good practice to attempt to locate the original source of the information.​ Click through the links to follow the claims to the original source of information. Open up the original reporting sources listed in a bibliography if present

    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 librarian!​.

    The CRAAP Test

    The CRAAP Test is an evaluation method that was designed by librarian Sarah Blakeslee at the Meriam Library California State Universiy, Chico. CRAAP stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy and Purpose. This provides you with a method and list of questions to evaluate the nature and value of the information that you find.

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

    C - Currency

    The timeliness of the information:

    When was the information published or posted?
    Has the information been revised or updated?
    Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
    Are the links functional?

    R - Relevance

    The importance of the information for your needs:

    Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
    Who is the intended audience?
    Is the information at an appropriate level (i.e. not too elementary or advanced for your needs)?
    Have you looked at a variety of sources before determining this is one you will use?
    Would you be comfortable citing this source in your research paper?

    A - Authority

    The source of the information:

    Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor?
    What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations?
    Is the author qualified to write on the topic?
    Is there contact information, such as a publisher or email address?
    Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source?

    .ac.uk = Academic institutions in the UK
    .com = Commercial sites
    .edu = Educational institutions
    .gov = Government
    .nhs.uk = Health information services in the UK
    .org = Non-profit organizations
    .mil = Military
    .net = Network.

    A - Accuracy

    The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content:

    Where does the information come from?
    Is the information supported by evidence?
    Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
    Can you verify any of the information in another source or from personal knowledge?
    Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
    Are there spelling, grammar or typographical errors?

    P - Purpose

    The reason the information exists:

    What is the purpose of the information? Is it to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?
    Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear?
    Is the information fact, opinion or propaganda?
    Does the point of view appear objective and impartial?
    Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional or personal biases?

    Resources

    Caulfield, M. (2017, January 8). Updated Resources for 2021. Pressbooks.pub; Self-published. pressbooks.pub

    Van Kampen, K. (2025, February 20). Evaluating Resources and Misinformation [Review of Evaluating Resources and Misinformation]. UChicago Library. guides.lib.uchicago.edu

    This page titled 7.6: Research on the Internet is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Nichole Ary via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.