Not all sources are equally trustworthy. Reliable sources are usually written by qualified authors or established organisations, are current, cite evidence, and can be checked against other sources. Warning signs of an unreliable source include no named author, no date, extreme or emotionally loaded language, and claims that can't be verified elsewhere. Learning to evaluate sources is essential for research and for everyday reading online.
Example
A peer-reviewed scientific journal article with a named author, references and a publication date is generally more reliable than an anonymous blog post making the same claim with no sources cited.
Key terms
Reliable source:
A source that is credible, current, evidence-based and can be checked against others.
Credibility:
How trustworthy and believable a source is, based on factors like authorship, evidence and currency.
Questions
1. A reliable source is generally:
Anonymous with no evidence
Credible, current and evidence-based
Always fictional
Impossible to check
2. Credibility refers to:
A source's trustworthiness
A type of punctuation
A narrative structure
A grammar rule
3. Which is a warning sign of an unreliable source?
A named, qualified author
No named author and no date
Citations to other sources
Calm, factual language
4. Which is a sign of a reliable source?
Extreme, emotionally loaded language
Evidence and citations
No way to check the claims
An anonymous author
5. Checking a source against other sources mainly helps you:
Assess its reliability
Ignore it completely
Make it less trustworthy
Remove the need for evidence
6. A peer-reviewed journal article is generally considered:
Highly unreliable
More reliable than an anonymous blog post
Always false
A type of narrative
7. Evaluating sources is important mainly for:
Ignoring all research
Research and everyday reading online
Avoiding reading altogether
Replacing the need for facts
8. Which of these is the strongest sign of a reliable source?
No author listed
A named, qualified author and citations to evidence
Emotionally charged language throughout
A very old, undated page
9. A blog post making a big claim with no evidence or citations should be treated with:
Complete trust
Appropriate scepticism until verified
No consideration at all
Automatic belief
10. Which of these would most likely indicate a source is outdated and possibly unreliable for current information?
A clear recent publication date
No date at all on older factual claims
A named author
Citations to other sources
11. Comparing a claim across multiple reliable sources mainly helps you:
Confirm whether it's well-supported
Make the claim less true
Avoid checking it further
Ignore all evidence
12. Which source is likely more reliable for a health claim?
A government health department's website
An anonymous social media post with no sources
A meme with no author
A post using only emotional language
13. Extreme or emotionally loaded language in a source claiming to be factual can suggest:
High reliability
Potential bias or an attempt to persuade rather than inform
Nothing meaningful
Absolute accuracy
14. Which is the best first step when evaluating an unfamiliar source?
Immediately trust it
Check the author, date, evidence and whether it's corroborated elsewhere
Ignore it without reading
Assume it's always accurate
15. A website makes a health claim, cites no sources, has no author listed, and uses urgent, alarming language. Based on these signs, a careful reader should:
Fully trust the claim
Treat the claim with significant scepticism and seek reliable, verifiable sources
Share it immediately without checking
Assume it must be true because it sounds urgent
16. Why might even a source with a named author still need further scrutiny?
Named authors are always completely unbiased
An author's expertise, potential bias and evidence still need to be considered
Named sources can never be wrong
No further scrutiny is ever needed
17. Which best explains why checking a claim against multiple independent, reliable sources increases confidence in it?
Multiple sources are always identical anyway
Independent corroboration reduces the chance the claim is a single source's error or bias
Checking multiple sources never adds value
It has no effect on reliability
18. A source that consistently uses evidence, cites its data, and is written by a relevant expert is exhibiting signs of:
Low reliability
High reliability
Complete bias
Total inaccuracy
19. Why is evaluating source reliability especially important when researching online?
Anyone can publish anything online, regardless of accuracy, so critical evaluation is essential
All websites are equally reliable
Reliability only matters for printed sources
Online sources are automatically fact-checked
20. The main purpose of evaluating a source's reliability is to:
Decide how much trust to place in its claims before relying on them
Automatically reject every source
Avoid research entirely
Replace the need for critical thinking
Answer key (parent copy)
1. Credible, current and evidence-based
2. A source's trustworthiness
3. No named author and no date
4. Evidence and citations
5. Assess its reliability
6. More reliable than an anonymous blog post
7. Research and everyday reading online
8. A named, qualified author and citations to evidence
9. Appropriate scepticism until verified
10. No date at all on older factual claims
11. Confirm whether it's well-supported
12. A government health department's website
13. Potential bias or an attempt to persuade rather than inform
14. Check the author, date, evidence and whether it's corroborated elsewhere
15. Treat the claim with significant scepticism and seek reliable, verifiable sources
16. An author's expertise, potential bias and evidence still need to be considered
17. Independent corroboration reduces the chance the claim is a single source's error or bias
18. High reliability
19. Anyone can publish anything online, regardless of accuracy, so critical evaluation is essential
20. Decide how much trust to place in its claims before relying on them