Source Evaluation: The SIFT Method

Deciding whether a source is trustworthy and authoritative can be challenging. The SIFT method is an evaluation strategy developed by digital literacy expert Mike Caulfield to help determine whether online content can be trusted as credible or reliable sources of information. Incorporating the SIFT method can help you to analyze information, especially news or other online media sources. This method is also called the "Four Moves." The steps are: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, and Trace the original context. See more detail on each step below.

If you have additional questions, ask a librarian for help!

Stop

• The first move is the simplest. STOP reminds you of two things:
  • When you first land on a page or post, STOP. Don’t read or share it until you know what it is. Ask yourself if you recognize the website or source. Do you know anything about the source reputation? If not, use other moves below to better assess the source before sharing. 
  • After you begin to use the other moves it can be easy to go down a rabbit hole, going off on tangents only distantly related to your original task. If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed in your fact-checking efforts, STOP and take a second to remember your original purpose. If you just want to repost, read an interesting story, or get a high-level explanation, it’s usually enough to check if the publication is reputable. For deep research, you may need to verify individual claims independently. Both quick and deep investigations are valuable. Either way, it’s important to pause and reevaluate your reaction or search strategy regularly.

Investigate the Source

• The idea in this move is that you want to know what you’re reading before you read it.
  • Taking 60 seconds to check a media source before reading helps you decide if it’s worth your time and improves your understanding of its significance and trustworthiness.

  • Knowing the expertise and agenda of the source is crucial to your interpretation of what they say. 

Find Better Coverage

• Sometimes, you care less about the article itself and more about whether its claim is true, false, widely accepted, or disputed. In this move, look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim. 
  • Scan multiple sources and see what the expert consensus seems to be. Use lateral reading to verify the claim by consulting multiple sources, especially outside the original article or site. You may disagree with the consensus, but knowing the context and history of a claim improves your evaluation and directs further research.
  • This mode encourages you to find additional coverage on the claim that better suits your needs - more trusted, more in-depth, or maybe just more varied. Consider the experts and perspectives that contribute to a more complete understanding of the claim. 
  • Use fact-checkers, such as FactCheck.org, Reuters Fact Check, Snopes, Washington Post Fact Checker, and Politifact, to check for investigations into the claim. Fact-checkers are often nonpartisan, nonprofit websites that try to increase public understanding by checking claims to confirm if they are based on fact, contain bias, or are not supported by evidence.  

Trace claims, quotes, and media back to the original context

• Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Sensational headlines or posts may distort facts for clicks. Reposts can omit or twist key details. Always check the original source for the full context. When an article references a quote from an expert, or results of a research study, it is good practice to locate the original source of the information.​ In the final move, work to trace back the claim, quote, or media back to the original context.
  • Click through the links to sources listed and evaluate them. 
  • Locate the original reporting sources listed in a bibliography or references list, if available.
  • Ask yourself: Does the extracted information support the original claims in the research? Is information being taken out of context? Is information being cherry-picked to support an agenda or a bias? 

All SIFT information on this page is adapted from Mike Caulfield's materials under a CC BY 4.0 license. Caufield, M. (2019, June 19). SIFT (The Four Moves) [Blog post]. Hapgood. Retrieved from https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/