: Re: How can I know that what's on a site is true? So from my other question, I was told that under certain circumstances, you could trust Wikipedia. But then after a couple of answers, I started

@Nickens642

Vote Up Vote Down

It would be wonderful if there was a simple answer to this question. Unfortunately, there isn't.

Scientists and scholars put a lot of weight on the idea of peer-reviewed journals, that is, journals that only print articles after having some number of other experts review them. That's certainly not a bad idea, but plenty of articles in such journals are contradicted by other articles in equally responsible journals or have otherwise been proven to be wrong. (See, for example, www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/)
If you're talking about straightforward facts that are not particularly controversial -- like the date Donald Trump was born in your example -- if you can find two or three sources that agree, it's likely true. If you really wanted to be diligent you could search for a primary source document, like a birth certificate.

But if you're talking about something that is controversial or emotionally charged -- like whether Donald Trump's tax plan is good or bad for the economy -- you're going to find contradictory information from different sources. Even on purely factual questions, not "is it good?" but "how much will the taxes of the average American go up or down?", different sources will likely give totally different numbers. People will have different assumptions, calculate things differently, etc.

I've had a number of times that I've seen a story in the news that said "recent study proves X", and where I was interested enough to look up the original study and found that it proved nothing of the kind.

Heck, I once ran for a minor local office. A newspaper reporter interviewed me and then printed a story about what I said. He reported that I was in favor of a proposed law that he described. Except ... he never asked me about that law in the interview, I had never heard of it before reading in the paper that I was for it, and in fact if his description of the law was accurate I would have been against it. (Of course his description of the law may have been just as inaccurate as his description of my position on it.) That little incident has made me suspicious of anything I've heard in the news since. How often are famous people misquoted? Whether by mistake or bias.

So how can you tell what's true?

Is it something straightforward and non-controversial? If someone tells me what the zip code of his home town is, he probably knows and it's unlikely he has a reason to lie.
Is the speaker likely to know? Like if I find a zip code on the postal service web site, well they should know. If the postal service web site has a description of a new commemorative stamp that makes comments about history ... maybe they know and maybe they don't.
Do multiple sources agree? If every source you can find on a question agrees, odds are its true. Not necessarily, of course. They could all be getting their information, directly or indirectly, from the same inaccurate source.
Like #3 , but especially: Do people on both sides of a controversial issue agree? Like if both the National Rifle Association and Handgun Control Inc agree on some claimed fact about gun violence, odds are it's true. If it was a lie being pushed by one side, you'd expect the other to be calling them out on it.
Has the source been generally reliable in the past? If someone's been convicted of fraud and libel 20 times in the past, I'm not going to take his latest revelations at face value. There's the catch here that what one person considers a reliable source, someone else might think is totally biased. Ask conservatives and liberals for their opinions about the New York Times and Fox News.

From there it all depends on how much work you are willing to do. I've had a few occasions where I've seen a story in the news declaring "recent study proves X", and I've taken the trouble to actually get a copy of the study, and found that it proved no such thing. If the conclusions of the study are key to what you're writing about, you probably should read the original study. If it's a minor point along the way, how much work are you willing to do to validate one stray statistic? Similarly, I've had a few occasions where I wanted to make a point about history and so I've gone to primary sources and read what the original ancient writers actually said. But again, that can be a lot of work. Is it worth it?

(0)

Login to post a comment!