Content Analysis
Author – Is someone identified as the author of the site or article? Google them, look for a personal website. If their byline links to an archive of previous work, read through it to see if they cover the topic regularly. If they’re an academic, Howard Rheingold has a tip to check their credibility: “use the scholarly productivity index that derives a score from the scholar’s publications, citations by other scholars, grants, honors, and awards. If you want to get even more serious, download a free copy of Publish or Perish software, which analyzes scientific citations from Google Scholar according to multiple criteria. Again, don’t trust just one source. Triangulate.”
Content – Is the article citing facts and are they accurate? Or do you read it and realize there isn’t fact, statistic, quote or citation mentioned. Does it rely on generalized personal narratives that lack specificity?
Copy – Rosenberg advocates checking to see if the content is original. “Grab a chunk of text (a sentence or so), put it in quotes, and plug it into Google to see whether there are multiple versions of the text you’re reading.”
Links – Does it link out to reputable sources? Is it littered with keyword ads, or have no links at all? Also, critically, see who is linking to the site or page in question. Here’s what Rosenberg wrote about this: “If your hunt for links in turns up a ton of references from dubious sites, your article may be part of a Google-gaming effort. If you see lots of inbound links from sites that seem reputable to you, that’s a better sign. “
Comments/Tweets/Likes – Are people interacting with the content? Be sure to check if all of the comments are spam, and also to see if tweets come from active users rather than bots. Finally is anyone Like-ing the content or the site in general? One easy way to look for social media chatter for a given link is to install the ConvoTrack bookmarklet. Run it while on the site in question and it will show if people have shared the link on Twitter, FriendFeed, Digg, Reddit, HackerNews and some of the major blogging platforms.
Bookmarking – Rheingold noted that a good way to check on a piece of content—or website in general—is to see if people are bookmarking it. “See if the source has been bookmarked on a social bookmarking service like Delicious or Diigo; although it shouldn’t be treated as a completely trustworthy measurement, the number of people who bookmark a source can furnish clues to its credibility.”
Social Media Content
A good starting point for thinking about how to verify a tweet is this post from Craig Kanalley. (Here’s my related column about how to correct tweets.) He covers all of the important and basic points.
As I detailed in a recent column about the crisis-mapping project Ushahidi, it’s important to evaluate the network of the person providing the information. If you’re trying to verify a tweet, see if reputable, trustworthy people are interacting with that user, or if they have retweeted the information. If this person they followed by people in the geographic area where they claim to be? Does the list of people they follow seem to mesh with their profile and tweets? For Facebook, have they tagged the appropriate people in their status update and have those people responded with likes or comments?

The United Egg Producers is not a credible source of information. It has a history of animal cruelty and consumer deception. More at
www.humanesociety.org/uep
#1 Posted by Paul, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 10:51 AM
My gut tells me this is a useful article.
#2 Posted by Jill Elswick, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 01:11 PM
Here's another cut at the issue that you can use to evaluate the reliability of any story. Evaluate all sources in the article on three criteria:
1. Expertise -- Has the source either long experience with the subject or academic expertise such as an advanced degree in the field?
2. Proximity -- Was the source an eyewitness with a clear view, or is the information conveyed second hand?
3. Freedom from conflict of interest -- Does the source have an axe to grind -- something to gain by giving a partisan view?
Rate all the sources on these three criteria -- the higher they score in the aggregage, the more reliable the report is likely to be.
#3 Posted by John McManus, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 12:08 AM
Nothing beats a Who, What, When, Where and Why. Sound familiar?
#4 Posted by jon , CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 06:19 PM
Interesting, useful piece. Could someone tell me, though, what the reference to fooledya.com means?
#5 Posted by Jamie, CJR on Tue 29 Mar 2011 at 06:59 PM