UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 15.13 Free with a free account
Evaluating Online Sources: How to Find Reliable Information and Spot Misinformation
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 15: Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital CitizenshipSection 15.13 · lesson 112 of 11614 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How Social Platforms Shape What People Think, Feel, and Believe →← The Rules and Agencies That Control What Gets Broadcast and PublishedNext lesson: How Social Platforms Shape What People Think, Feel, and Believe →
In this lesson
Find reliable information and spot misleading claims.
- Distinguish misinformation from deliberate disinformation
- Apply currency, relevance, authority, accuracy and purpose
- Use lateral reading and verification tools
- Assess possible deepfakes through clues and source context
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,875 words). Read along, or search it.
Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital Citizenship
Evaluating Online Sources
Online information is useful, only when we can judge whether it deserves trust. This lesson connects false-information vocabulary, source evaluation, lateral reading, and audiovisual verification. First, distinguish an honest mistake, from a false claim deliberately circulated to deceive. Next, apply the CRAAP test, which organizes five questions about an information source. Currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, each connect to your research need. Then practice lateral reading: leave a page, to check what independent sources say about it. We also compare fact-checking sites, reverse image search, web archives, and author or outlet lookups. Finally, examine possible deepfake clues, while remembering that appearances alone cannot settle authenticity. Check both the claim, and the context in which it appears. A real image may accompany a false story, while a polished website may be unreliable. Aim for supported reasoning, rather than quick judgments based on confidence or design.
False Information and Intent
The Same Claim Can Be Shared for Different Reasons
Misinformation and disinformation differ, through the intention behind creating or sharing false information. Misinformation is shared by someone, who believes the information is true. There is no deceptive intent, although the information is false or outdated. An honest mistake, misunderstanding, or outdated fact, becomes misinformation when repeated as current truth. Someone shares an old statistic, while believing it still describes the present. Disinformation instead involves false content, deliberately created or spread to deceive its audience. It may manipulate opinion or behavior, rather than accurately explain what happened. Fabricating a news story, to influence an election, is the source's disinformation example. The underlying false statement, can look the same in either category. The intention behind its use differs, and requires evidence to establish. Discovering an error does not, by itself, prove that every sharer knowingly intended deception. That supports precise correction, without confusing mistaken belief with deliberate deception.
As a Claim Spreads
A Later Sharer’s Intent Can Change the Classification
A claim's classification can change, as people share it for different reasons. An original poster might make an honest mistake, and believe the statement is correct. When that person shares it as true, the source describes the result as misinformation. A later reader might recognize the error, but deliberately circulate the statement to mislead others. That use becomes disinformation, even if the claim's wording does not change. The content alone cannot reveal, every person's knowledge or intention at each stage. Verify what is false, then distinguish that finding from the evidence for deliberate deception. Do not assume downstream sharers, all know what another reader or poster knew. The example concerns changed use, rather than a change in the statement itself. An accurate account identifies the claim, the context, and the intention the evidence can support. This vocabulary helps discuss false content carefully, before choosing checks for its reliability.
The CRAAP Test
5 Questions Make Source Evaluation Concrete
The CRAAP test supplies five concrete questions, rather than one vague impression. Currency asks when information was published or updated, and whether that timing matters. The source contrasts a recent statistic, with one that may describe conditions a decade earlier. Relevance asks whether material addresses, the question you are trying to answer. A general article about another issue, may not supply the evidence you need. Authority asks who produced the source, and what qualifies them on the topic. The source contrasts an identifiable expert, with an author whose qualifications are unknown. Accuracy asks whether claims can be checked, through credible evidence beyond that page. Purpose asks why the source exists: to inform, persuade, sell, or shape interpretation. These questions work together, but none automatically certifies that a source is correct. Recency does not guarantee truth, and older information may suit a historical question. Check the evidence supporting each answer, rather than simply marking five boxes as complete.
Purpose and Selective Framing
Accurate Individual Facts Can Still Create a Misleading Impression
Purpose deserves attention, even when individual facts on a page are accurate. A source seeking to persuade or sell, may choose facts that support its preferred conclusion. It can also omit context, or emphasize some consequences while making others less visible. Each included statement might be correct, while the overall impression remains incomplete or misleading. The source's review therefore asks, about purpose alongside the other four criteria. Identify the belief or action, that the presentation encourages you to adopt. Compare that impression, with fuller evidence and the context that may be missing. Persuasion does not automatically make claims false, just as an informative label proves little alone. The useful task is to examine, how the source selects and explains its evidence. Purpose connects source evaluation, with framing questions explored earlier in this chapter. We can check that interpretation, by looking beyond the publisher's own explanation of its intentions.
Lateral Reading
Leave the Page to Check the Source Through Outside Evidence
Lateral reading means leaving the original page, to investigate the source and its claims elsewhere. Four stages begin, when a headline, post, or article makes a claim worth checking. Next, open another tab, instead of judging by reading deeper into that site. Search what independent, established sources say, about the producer and the information being presented. Then return with context, and reassess the original claim using what those outside checks revealed. That differs from relying on the site's own biography, description, or impressive-looking citations. A deceptive publisher controls those elements, and can convincingly describe its own reliability. Outside evidence tests that self-presentation, rather than simply accepting the publisher's account. The source links this strategy, with the practices observed in professional fact-checking. That does not mean all fact-checkers follow, one sequence for every claim. The central move is independent verification, before spending too much effort inside an unfamiliar page. Use outside findings to improve judgment, rather than consider another tab sufficient verification.
Why the Outside Check Helps
Independent Evidence Is More Useful Than Repeated Self-Promotion
Begin by checking the producer, and what others can verify about them. Search an author's or outlet's name, and inspect credible accounts of qualifications and track record. Examine the specific claim, because reliable reputation does not prove every assertion. Independence matters: several websites can repeat, the same original statement without checking it separately. Counting those repetitions does not create, several independent confirmations of the underlying event. Information outside the publisher's control, can challenge its own favorable description. An outside page can also be unreliable, or depend on the site being evaluated. Read what evidence establishes, rather than trust results simply because they look independent. Then return to the original material, with the relevant context and any remaining uncertainty. Lateral reading improves evaluation, while requiring care in choosing comparison sources. It extends the CRAAP questions outward, rather than replacing them with an automatic reputation score.
4 Source Verification Tools
Choose a Tool That Addresses the Uncertainty
Four tool categories in the source, can make those outside checks more practical. Independent fact-checking organizations investigate specific circulating claims, and publish the reasoning behind their findings. Their conclusions may distinguish true, false, or misleading statements, rather than only offer a binary label. Read the evidence and context, instead of treating the rating alone as a complete explanation. Reverse image search uses the image itself, to find other places where it has appeared online. A match may reveal an older photograph, being presented as current or connected to a different event. Web archive tools store snapshots, showing what a page said before an edit or removal. The captured date and the available material matter, when comparing an earlier page with a later version. Site and author lookups use neutral terms, to inspect outside accounts of track records. Choose the tool according to the uncertainty: source identity, photo context, page history, or a factual assertion. The tools provide evidence to examine. They do not independently verify every part, of the claim that brought you to them.
Old Images and Changed Pages
A Real Artifact Can Be Presented in a False Context
A real photograph can support misinformation, when someone assigns a false date or event. The source identifies this recontextualization, as a particular problem reverse image search can expose. An image described as current, might appear in a report from an earlier time. It could show a different event, despite looking visually similar to the new claim. The matching image tests its history, rather than merely confirm that the photograph exists. Examine the date, original account, and context, before deciding what the earlier appearance establishes. A web archive addresses another uncertainty: what the publisher's page said before a later change. Comparing captures reveals altered wording, or preserves versions missing from the live site. Snapshots may not cover every moment, so use the record according to its contents. Both methods turn apparent evidence, into a history and context that can be checked. They help explain why a genuine artifact, does not automatically make the surrounding story true.
Possible Deepfake Clues
Combine Visual, Audio and Source Checks Without Treating Them as Proof
A deepfake is fabricated audio or video, that convincingly imitates a real person. The source groups possible clues, into facial detail, lighting, audio alignment, and source context. Facial clues include unusual blinking, blurred edges around the face, or skin that looks overly smooth or waxy. Lighting clues include a face's illumination or shadow, that does not match the rest of the scene. Audio clues include speech out of step with mouth movements, or an unusual tone and cadence. Context checks examine the uploader's track record, original setting, and the claimed speaker's official channels. These observations can raise a reason to investigate, but they are not definitive authentication tests. Synthetic content can lack obvious flaws, and ordinary video conditions can also create suspicious-looking irregularities. The absence of a visual defect, does not prove that a recording is genuine. Likewise, absence from an official account does not prove, that the person never made the statement elsewhere. Seek the original recording and independent context, then weigh those findings alongside the audiovisual observations. Careful verification improves assessment, without promising that any glance detects every deepfake.
6 Key Terms and 5 Takeaways
Evaluate the Claim, the Producer, the Context and the Evidence
The six key terms connect different parts, of the source-evaluation process. Misinformation is false content shared as true, without the deceptive intent in this lesson's contrast. Disinformation is false content deliberately created or spread, for the purpose of deception. The CRAAP test organizes currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, into questions about the source. Lateral reading leaves the page, to check independent accounts of the producer and its claims. Reverse image search locates other appearances, using the image itself as the search input. A deepfake convincingly imitates a person, through fabricated audio or video. The source's first takeaway concerns intent, while the second concerns the five evaluation questions. Its third emphasizes lateral reading, and its fourth connects verification tools with less guesswork. The fifth concerns possible deepfake clues, prompting further checks rather than guaranteeing detection. Together, the concepts ask us to assess the claim, the producer, the context, and the evidence.
Review and Apply
Explain What Each Check Can Establish
For the first review, false claims may be shared through honest belief or deliberate deception. Its wording can remain unchanged, while the intention behind a later use differs. For the purpose question, accurate facts may be selected, to produce a misleading overall impression. For lateral reading, the site controls its own description, while outside evidence can test that account. Outside sources still need evaluation; simply leaving the original page does not establish reliability. Reverse image search can expose an old or unrelated photograph, being assigned a false current context. For the final question, check official channels and provenance, alongside the uploader's history and other evidence. Missing confirmation is a reason to investigate, rather than a conclusive finding that the recording is fabricated. Explain what each check establishes, and what uncertainty remains after you inspect the results. Good evaluation connects the claim with support, instead of replacing missing evidence with a confident impression. That skill joins this lesson's vocabulary, framework, tools, and audiovisual clues.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Evaluating Online Sources: How to Find Reliable Information and Spot Misinformation
What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
What is the CRAAP test for evaluating sources?
What is lateral reading?
How can you tell if a video is a deepfake?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →