#I didn't know that about startpage

[seewetter]

Fact-Checking All I Post Since Dec 12, 2023

Hi.

This is a pinned post that explains my current ideal method of verifying information.

Firstly: I will always state what work I did (or didn't do) to fact-check a post.

This post will be pinned to remind me how to do my due diligence.

What to do to verify information?

Step 0: Notice suspicious aspects of what I'm reblogging

Calls to Action (can cause people to act without thinking first)

False sense of urgency: use of ALL CAPS as if people weren't going to read it otherwise indicates THEY ARE WRITING FOR AN AUDIENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXPECT WILL READ EVERYTHING including the fine print?

Judgemental statements: somebody is describing something by using insults, loaded language.

Factual errors

Jumping to conclusions

Step 1: Read beyond the Headline

If there is embedded articles, did I click through to read it?

How much did I read?

Who is the source? Do I know the source?

If I trust the source: why? What makes them trustworthy?

If I don't usually trust the source but am sharing anyway, why?

Step 2: Find a Credible Source

Did i check the web address (URL) to make sure the website is not impersonating another source?

Find other sources. I read in a magazine once that its recommended to have at least 3 separate sources confirm something. That way there is likely expert consensus and not a rogue editorial board or a compromised source.

Sometimes 3 sources agreeing might mean they are colluding, so the goal here is to document who is saying what and get a picture of where the information is coming from and how it's being shared.

Did I do a cursory check of the Tumblr user sharing the source?

Step 3: Verify Online Source is Authentic

I use startpage.com (a search engine that Google's things for me so Google doesn't know who is googling & thus won't tailor content to me)

As an IT student, I know that when links show up in purple in search engines that is a feature offered by my browser history, not by the search engine. So if I follow a link on Tumblr, then check with Google or Startpage (or Yahoo or Bing or DuckDuckGo), I can see if the website can be found normally through a web search.

I can also use Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) to check older versions of a story. So far, I don't know of any case where the Wayback Machine has deliberately censored or removed information.

Step 4: What else can I do?

read full article of each source

return to the article weeks later to see if corrections have been posted

check the website. Under "Contact" there should be information about the source. Who are they? I can look them up on Wikipedia to see if the source is known to have issues.

Step 5: Offer my followers some info on how they could improve on my work

Articles I haven't fully read can of course be improved by reading the whole thing

Sources can lie.

Read different opposite perspectives (use search engine to look up keywords that might pop up an opposing perspective)

Read primary sources. Did I reblog about a law being passed? Find the official government website where the law is posted.

If a story seems obviously favour one partisan group, then: A basic question for opposing groups or individuals is (A) did they read critiques of themselves (B) do they have a response (C) does their response contain a kernel of truth or is it appealing somehow (can it be steelmanned?) of maybe even they are more right than they seemed and (D) does their response feel sincere? (E) do they have a sense for what might go wrong with their counter-proposal (F) does their response need a better counter-response?

Step 6: Justify sharing things that I half-research.

For example: I shared this because the idea (perhaps mistaken perception / fantasy) of an internet censorship bill scares me.

Reason: My followers get an idea for why I think the information is valuable and can critique me better.

Step 7: Explain: Will I share more on this story or do more research?

In many cases, I reblog things and not think about them any further unless it circulates around and generates more conversation.

As a person with limited financial means and little interest in policy discussions, I want people who read my blog to like...know about (possibly) serious developments, but I'm convinced the main point of reblogging is to increase the statistical chance that it reaches people who are keenly interested and more dedicated than I am to doing something.

That's unfortunate of course (I always worry about how wars and other nightmarish things exit the media cycle even while still ongoing!) but I don't run this blog to be a downer blog and I also don't run it to be discussing topics that only interest me in that I'd like to see people (including myself, when that is feasible) work together to solve them.

Hopefully (if anyone even reads this) people can relate and won't think the worst of me. Not like I'm the best person anyway. Uh, thanks for reading.