We are trying to go beyond fact-checking but fact-checking is also important part when collecting information on the internet.

As studies shows that (not only)[1] students tent to evaluate credibility of information on the internet based on not relevant criteria like:

-        web domain (like .org, .com, .gov, .edu)

• anyone can register most of the web domains (like .org, .com and others) and so the domain itself does not tell us much or anything about the source information. So we need to take a closer look who is the owner of the domain and do not relay on the domain itself

• national domain like .cz, .it, .sk might show that the web site is intended for users in particular country but also could be registered by anyone

• the .gov domain space is operated for the US government and its agencies. So the .gov domain name web pages are US government agencies. This however does not mean that we have to take the information presented for granted (as true) but the information should represent the view of the particular US government agency

• the .edu domain could be (since October 29, 2001) registered only by postsecondary institutions and organizations that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education

-        but keep in mind that schools/universities web pages can contain several type of information, even blogs where any one can write. So the sites does not necessarily have to represent the position of the institution

-        web design (graphic design, layout, colors, resolution, or logo)

• as web design can be an indicator or a red flag for misleading information it never can be a (dis)prove of reliability of the information presented

• anyone can design whatever web page they want

-        by amount of information and data presented about the topic

• judge web pages solely on the amount of information and data (and beautiful charts, statistics or infographics) is presented about the topic by itself (without checking the sources) is not a criterion for credibility of web pages and the data and information presented

-        charts cannot be taken as trustworthy by itself

-        about and contact page

• asses reliability of the web page based on information provided at the About or Contact page

-        any organization can present themselves as they see fit to their purpose (even an oil lobbing company can present them as green activists…)

-        crosschecking and lateral reading (see below) is needed to check trustworthiness of the web page

-        biased and opinioned content

• yes we are looking for reliable evidence but we should not dismiss information from evidently biased or opinioned articles or web pages

• instead we should take the perspective of the author into account (recognize their point of view and consider it when assessing the information presented)

• the evidence they provide can be credible even if they are advocating from certain perspective

-        like an activists showing evidence of someone polluting environment (we should asses the evidence provided and not dismiss it just because it is presented by someone representing certain point of view)

• such information is also very useful to understand the point of view (perspective) of particular group

-        as now in with the Russian invasion of Ukraine we need and should understand how Russians perceive the conflict (Russian perspective) and the “evidence” they are exposed to

-        the same with the climate change “denials”, if you want to argue with them you should not just provide evidence but you should understand what are their arguments based on

• mare about biases in the Module 2

• for more information how to deal with contradicting perspectives see Module 2 Values and norms

-        presence of links or citations

• links to the source of information are crucial for fact checking the data provided to know what is the source and what methods were used to collect the evidence

• but we cannot rely solely on fact that the web page provides lot of links and/or citations. Not just their presence but relevance and reliability should be assessed (the sources of information could be spreading disinformation)

-        donations tab on the web page

• for many NGOs the donations from public are the only source of income and we need to say that legitimate income. This does not mean that the organization is not trustworthy

• an organization to be financed by actors of particular interest is an another story (e. g. documented are organizations financed to serve interests of tobacco and oil industry to prove and promote non harmful effects of cigarettes and deny climate change using sophisticated strategies)[2]

-        video as evidence

• video content is by someone [3] taken as reliable source of information as it is believed  “it is documenting the reality” and so indisputable. Without any real evidence who, where and by whom the video was recorded (or fabricated…)

-        yes, video is very solid evidence, but we need to be sure that it is really showing the declared situation and that it was not fabricated or taken somewhere else or in another time

-        importantly: we also need to ask if the video is really shoving what is claimed to show (is it really supporting the argument)

-        advertising content

• many students even do not recognize an advertising contend as an advertisement

-        2/3 of students did not tell the difference between news and adds even when it is labeled as such [4]

[1] This is also relevant for Ph.D. students and university professors and researchers.

[2] I tis documented by several studies that you can criticaly explore by your self. BBC Sounds did an entertaining podcast series aboud this findings: How They Made Us Doubt Everything.

[3] In the reserch done by Stanford University (2019) it was 52% of students in the conducted study.

[4] STUDENTS' CIVIC ONLINE REASONING A National Portrait done at Stanford University (2019)

Disinformation and misinformation is often spread using specific manipulation techniques. These techniques are exploiting knowledge about our behavior.

Manipulation techniques used to promote disinformation and fake-news based on research [1]:

Emotional language

“Emotions are powerful tools of persuasion. Research shows that using emotional words, especially ones that evoke negative emotions such as fear or outrage, increases the viral potential of social media content.” “Using emotionally charged words provoking outrage is helping (even untrue) information go viral. Rather than reacting immediately, be cautious and critical when emotionally charged words are used in the content you see”.

See also our discussion about social networks as secondary sources of information above.

Incoherence

“Incoherence occurs when someone uses two or more arguments to make a point that cannot logically all be true at once. It’s a technique most commonly seen in longer discussions about a particular topic.”

It is important to notice that for the “followers” of conspiracy theories the conspiracy theory seems absolutely coherent as it seemingly provide explanation for issues otherwise unexplained. This is by over-interpreting evidence as conspiracy theories are mainly based on real evidence/phenomena but is attaching to it meanings that are (when we look properly) actually not supported by the evidence provided (see also Module 3 Make sense of information).

“In times of uncertainty, it's tempting to look for sinister motives or hidden causes behind what's going on. It's healthy to be skeptical, but in real life, many things can't be reduced to a simple cause (conspiracy).”

False Dichotomies

“A false dichotomy (or false dilemma) is a logical fallacy in which a limited number of choices or sides are presented as mutually exclusive, when in reality more options are available. It’s also known as the ´either-or fallacy´.”

In this way by dismissing one option the conspiracy theory is seemingly giving the argument for second option. But in reality none of the options are valid.

Scapegoating

“Scapegoating is when a person or group is singled out or takes unwarranted blame for a particular problem.”

This is quite common tactic to organize a group of people by strengthening the group’s identity by finding common enemy – fighting against someone. Unfortunately we do not see this only in conspiracy theories and disinformation tactics but is also common for politics. Politic is than not for something but against someone, to fight someone. This is proven but dangerous tactics as we could witnessed in history or in actual political context.

Ad-Hominem Attacks

„An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person making an argument, instead of addressing the argument itself. Ad hominem attacks are commonly used to redirect the listener away from the subject at hand and towards an individual. They can be baseless attacks but aren’t necessarily, as in some cases a messenger’s credibility is relevant to the argument at hand.”

Fake expert

“A lie can appear more reliable when a source backs it up. Even if that source doesn't exist, isn't credible, or was misquoted; it's easy to be blinded by fancy degrees and medical terminology.”

Be sure to check the credibility and actual existence of the declared source.

[1] Adopted from Inoculation Science (initiative from JIGSAW, University of Cambridge and University of Bristol). See videos on their web site that discuss each of the manipulative techniques.

As we now know what are not the relevant criteria of credibility about the information on the internet (see above), how should we proceeded? The approach to the information on the internet should be approached in following steps and considering following criteria:

I) Source of information

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED:

o   Tree main questions to be answered: HOW, WHERE and BY WHOM the data (proclaimed facts) was produced

o   Who is behind the information?

o   Who created the article/web page/graph/social media post?

o   Is it reliable source?

o   Can I trust it?

METHOD TO BE USED:

ü  Do not rely on the About us/Contact page of the web site

ü  Check the original source of information when accessing information on social media

ü  Find information about the author(s), organization on other sites – open new tabs on the browser and search for the authors credibility (lateral reading)

-      search for sources outside the web page concerned

-      you can also use fact-checking sites that often provide information about the organizations (e.g. Politifact, FactCheck.org, Snopes)

Lateral reading basically means to check the credibility of authors by finding information about them provided by other reliable sources. Practically it means to open other tabs to find (“google”) references and further information about the authors or organization owning the web page. For more reference and examples you can check the Civic Online Reasoning curriculum developed at Stanford university [1].

[1] https://cor.stanford.edu/curriculum/

II) The perspective

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED:

o   Who said that? And Why?

o   What is the perspective of the authors about the issue concerned?

o   What are their points of view and positions?

o   Does the source have an expertise in the topic and is he/she providing evidence?

METHOD TO BE USED:

ü  Do not rely on the About us page of the web site

ü  Use the information found about the author(s), organization on other sites – open new tabs on the browser and search for the authors (lateral reading)

ü  See and analyze the content of the article/web page

III)  The evidence provided

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED:

o   What evidence is provided?

o   Is the source of the evidence trustworthy (see step I)?

o   Are the data and information provided reliable, valid and complete (see criteria for quality of information above)?

o   What type of information - is it opinion or fact (or opinion supported by evidence)?

o   Is the evidence relevant for the conclusions made?

o   What perspective and arguments is the evidence supporting?

METHOD TO BE USED:

ü  Analyze the content of the article/web page (the evidence prided)

ü  Take into account the perspectives of the author on the topic (see the step II)

ü  Evidence based not eminence based information is needed. We need solid evidence and not just titles (no meter of what expert says it ask: Is he/she providing evidence or just an opinion?)…

ü  Use the information found about the author(s), organization on other sites – open new tabs on the browser and search for the authors (lateral reading)

-      see the reference provided and also check these references (the sites cited from must be also checked using lateral reading)

-      use other references about the evidence provided by other sources

-      use fact-checking sites

Opinion vs fact: it is important to distinguish between opinion and facts (data). Facts can be in principle verified (fact-checked). Opinion can be examined whether is it supported by evidence, experience or expertise. We can also speak about analysis and synthesis as form of already interpreted data presented in specific/selected way.

VI)  Find other sources

QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED:

o   Are there other sources of information for the topic?

o   What other information is available about the topic?

o   What other perspectives are about the topic?

METHOD TO BE USED:

ü  Search for other sources of information

-      do not rely on the first or three (four, five…) search output you find (the first or even first three findings on the Google search dos not need to be the best ones)

-      with the new source start from the step I)