Guides
Part of Source evaluation guide: mapping claims
How to verify an online source: a framework
Use this framework to verify an online source: identify its publisher, read laterally, trace key evidence, and record what remains unresolved.
What to take away
- Save the live page before you read it closely, because counters, embeds and maps change while you work.
- Identify the publisher through outside records, not the site's own About page.
- Leave the page and read laterally, the way working fact-checkers do.
- Trace each load-bearing quotation, figure and image back to the file it came from.
- Rate the claim on its own, not on who shared it.
A polished page can be accurate, stale, satirical, sponsored or copied. To verify an online source, treat the page as a lead, then establish who made it and where the information came from.
Freeze the page before it moves
Save the URL, the headline, the byline and the publication and update times. Screenshot the page and note the referral path that brought you to it. Copy the text you need, and note anything live: view counters, embedded posts, maps that redraw.
Freeze the page first
- Save URL, headline, byline, times
- Screenshot the page
- Note the referral path
- Copy the text you need
- Note live counters and maps
- Record redirects and language versions
Check what kind of page you are holding. It may be the publisher's own page, a platform preview, a syndication copy, an archive snapshot or a lookalike domain. Expand shortened links safely, and record redirects and language versions, because they often expose a different owner or a different date.
Write the claim in neutral words
Strip the outrage and the praise.
Split the claim into parts
- Who did what
- Where
- When
- How much
- Compared with what
- Why
If the page asserts nothing checkable, do not manufacture a claim to check. Satire, prediction and opinion need correct labeling and attribution, but not every sentence can be rated true or false.
Find out who is behind the page
Look for a named legal or editorial entity. Then look for staff names, contact details, ownership, funding, standards and corrections. Confirm each of those outside the site. Search the organization and its key people alongside words like ownership, registration, funding, correction, lawsuit and review. An organization's self-description is a claim, not evidence about it.
Who is behind the page
- Named legal or editorial entity
- Staff names and contact details
- Ownership and funding
- Standards and corrections
- Confirm each outside the site
- Check author experience and publisher ties
The National Library of Medicine puts the same question first. Its guidance on evaluating health information asks who runs the site. The answer is usually on an About Us page. A site that does not say who runs it may not be reliable at all.
Check the author's relevant experience and the publisher's relationship to the subject. Expertise in one field does not transfer to another. An anonymous author can still supply authentic evidence, but anonymity raises the amount of independent work you owe the claim.
Read laterally, not down the page
Stanford Graduate School of Education's account of research on how professional fact-checkers assess online credibility describes fact-checkers leaving an unfamiliar site and opening other pages to learn who was behind it. The study, Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information, by Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew, found that the lateral approach produced faster and better-warranted judgments than staying put and inspecting the page's surface features.
Lateral vs vertical reading
Lateral reading
- Method
- Open other pages
- Speed
- Faster
- Judgment
- Better warranted
- Focus
- Who is behind it
Staying on the page
- Method
- Inspect surface features
- Speed
- Slower
- Judgment
- Less warranted
- Focus
- How the page looks
Scan several results before you click. Prefer records and reporting that name their evidence. Search exact phrases to catch copying. Look for independent agreement, substantive criticism, former names and affiliations, and whether the page is known satire.
Trace every load-bearing item
Open the cited study, court record, dataset, video, transcript or photograph yourself. Confirm the title, the author, the date and the version. Check the population, the unit and the passage the sentence leans on. A link can be real and still fail to support the words beside it.
For a quotation, find the full exchange. For a number, find the table and the denominator. For an image, find the earliest file and the event around it. For a study, separate the findings from a press release's reading of them. If the trail ends at another summary, label it an unconfirmed secondary claim.
A rate is not a count, a complaint is not a ruling, and a retraction is not a correction. Say which one you are holding.
Compare, then document
Use a short evidence table to record the claim, source, support and conflict. The sample entries below are illustrative, not findings about a specific story.
| Claim element | Source found | Supports? | Independent? | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who published it | State business registration | Yes | Yes | Filing lags by weeks |
| The quoted figure | Original dataset table | Partly | Yes | Different denominator |
| The photograph | Earliest upload found | No | No | Predates the event |
Contact the responsible organization when the disputed fact is material, and set a response deadline that matches the risk and your publication need.
Conclude at claim level: supported, contradicted, misleading through missing context, unresolved, or not checkable. Save your search terms, pages, files, calculations and contact attempts, so another editor can reproduce the decision. The source claim verification checklist turns that record into a repeatable pass. How to check an unfamiliar account and viral post covers what changes when a post is already spreading.
Common questions
Does a .org address prove reliability?
No. A domain ending establishes nothing about ownership, method, evidence or accuracy. Judge the publisher, not the suffix.
Is an old page automatically wrong?
No. Its facts may still hold. But a current claim needs current confirmation, and the page needs a visible date before you can say which you have.
Should I trust a page with many citations?
Only after checking whether the citations are independent, current and relevant to the sentences they sit beside. A citation that links to a summary of a summary is not support.
When should I stop searching?
Stop when the material claim is supported to the risk level your publication requires. Otherwise stop when more searching is unlikely to resolve it, and state the uncertainty honestly.
