Articles

What Makes a Source Trustworthy?

Trustworthiness is not determined by a source’s appearance, popularity or institutional status alone. A source is useful only insofar as it provides appropriate support for a particular claim. Evaluating that support requires attention to authority, relevant expertise, evidence quality, methodological transparency, independence, currency, correction practices and corroboration. Different source types also require different judgments: academic research, government publications, journalism, company reports, advocacy material, reference works, anonymous sources and firsthand accounts each have distinct strengths and limitations. A prestigious source can be poorly suited to a specific claim, while a less prominent source may be the most direct and appropriate evidence available. This reference provides a practical framework for making those distinctions, assigning an appropriate level of confidence and documenting important uncertainties that remain unresolved.

[read more]

From Claim to Citation: A Repeatable Verification Method

A factual claim is only as reliable as the evidence behind it. This method sets out a repeatable process for verifying claims before publication: isolate exactly what is being asserted, determine what evidence would establish it, trace secondary reporting back to the nearest original source, and check dates, definitions, methodology and surrounding context. It also covers independent corroboration, conflicting or inaccessible evidence, revision checks and the difference between a source that merely repeats a claim and one capable of supporting it. A worked example follows a published statistic through reports, source material and underlying data, and a practical claim ledger provides a consistent record of evidence, limitations, verification status and review.

[read more]

The Original-Source Problem

Widely repeated statistics often acquire authority faster than they acquire evidence. This investigation traces eight familiar claims across management, public health, climate science, education, behavioral science and other fields to determine where their citation chains actually lead. It documents missing primary sources, altered definitions, copied references, disappearing qualifications, attribution drift and numbers detached from their original timeframe, while distinguishing unsupported repetition from claims whose underlying evidence remains strong but is routinely oversimplified.

[read more]