Columbia High School

As you read your growing list of sources, you may notice differences in both the information and point of view. Some topics, of course, are controversial and thus not only do differences of opinion appear, but biases and sometimes inaccuracies. You need to read critically as you begin to understand your topic. Be wary of accepting everything you read at face value. Many writers are just interested in their own point of view. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of your sources, then, is an important part of the research process. While inaccuracy and bias can be a part of ANY source, the INTERNET is especially susceptible to such problems. The following are some questions to help you evaluate your sources:

Does the source have an author?

Does the source have a clearly defined author, organization, or reputation? What IS his expertise, reputation, experience and bias? For example, an article on gun control by a member of the National Rifle Association would most likely have a bias against gun control. An article on police brutality by an unnamed, unidentified source would not carry as much weight as one by nationally recognized reporter in the field.

If an article doesn't have an author, is it published by a reputable organization, newspaper, or magazine? An anonymous article on the internet with no apparent organization (or a dubious one) has little merit and your teacher may disallow it for use. For example, an article on pollution submitted by a person signing the article "A Gud Sitizen" you may want to reconsider. On the other hand, an anonymous article published by the Wall Street Journal could be trusted.

Is the source accurate?

Do the facts in a source compare with those in other sources? If there are differences, is there good reason for them? For example, if several articles state that the death penalty is responsible for the deaths of about 600 people in the last 50 years, and one source claims about 4000, that fact may be doubtful. It may be that the writer, to make a bigger point, used the deaths from all over the world, instead of just the U.S.

Is the source up to date?

For some topics, of course, this is not an issue; for example, a paper on the Civil War. But many topics require more recent information. An article on AIDS from 1987 may not be as useful as one from 2001, unless you're looking at it from an historical perspective.

Does the source have a point of view, 'angle', or bias?

Is the writer claiming to be neutral but really is not? Does the source claim to give all the available information but really just gives out the information that helps his/her point of view? For example, an article on a new cement plant written by a pro-plant person might claim that the cleaner smokestacks will REDUCE the amount of pollutants. The truth might be that while the new smokestacks are cleaner than the old ones, there will still be MORE pollutants in the air because it can burn more.