{ "slug": "information", "name": "Making sense of online information", "browseLine": "Make sense of a claim, its evidence, and what to do next.", "photo": "/learn/assets/topics/information.jpg", "photoAlt": "An adult comparing information on a phone and laptop at a library desk", "aliases": [ "evaluating information", "fact checking", "media literacy", "online research", "is this true", "checking sources", "misinformation", "information overload", "AI image", "AI generated photo", "synthetic image" ], "family": "learning", "heat": "mid", "talk": "Sources", "mostDiscussed": true, "firstLine": "Information literacy means judging what supports an online claim and what remains uncertain. It includes tracing sources, understanding context and deciding when a check is enough for the decision.", "whyLine": "Information literacy means judging what supports an online claim and what remains uncertain. It includes tracing sources, understanding context and deciding when a check is enough for the decision.", "feelWords": [ "screenshot", "clip", "video", "quote", "context", "same claim", "many sites", "repeated" ], "commonPicture": [ { "lead": "Understand a screenshot or short clip", "why": "A screenshot can accurately copy a sentence while leaving out the question, date or qualification that changes its meaning. Media educator Renee Hobbs distinguishes how authentic a message looks from whether its facts have been checked. Those are separate questions. Before using a clipped announcement to make a plan, look for the full notice or recording and check who it applies to. An event advertised last year might have a different date now. This ordinary example illustrates context checking; a polished image is neither proof of truth nor proof of fakery." }, { "lead": "Make sense of several sites saying the same thing", "why": "Several pages may be repeating one announcement rather than reporting several separate observations. Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan distinguish the people who create, produce and distribute a message. The person sharing it with you need not be its originator. Follow the links far enough to see whether the pages rely on the same underlying report. For example, three event roundups quoting one venue notice still give you one notice to check. Repetition can help you find information, but the number of copies does not add new evidence by itself." }, { "lead": "Assess a recommendation from an expert or creator", "why": "A useful recommendation can combine firsthand experience, specialist knowledge and an interest in selling something. Alexios Mantzarlis’s fact-checking guidance separates a checkable factual assertion from opinion and asks how close the evidence is to the thing being claimed. Start with the precise benefit you care about. “I enjoyed this workshop” is different from “this workshop guarantees employment.” You can value the experience while asking for stronger evidence for the guarantee. Relevant expertise and financial interests provide context; neither a famous name nor sponsorship settles the claim by itself." }, { "lead": "Finish a useful check without opening endless tabs", "why": "Research can wander when each page introduces another question. Mike Caulfield’s SIFT guidance includes stopping to recover your purpose, not simply searching for longer. Write down the one thing you need to decide and what would answer it. If you are checking whether a community workshop is happening, the organizer’s current notice is more relevant than a long argument about the topic of the workshop. Save the result and any unresolved detail. That is a practical adaptation, not a universal two-minute rule or a reason to rush a consequential decision." } ], "situationQuickAnswers": [ [ { "label": "Check the original", "value": "Find the full notice or recording; check its date, question, qualifications, and who it applies to." }, { "label": "Two separate questions", "value": "Does the screenshot look authentic, and have the facts actually been checked?" } ], [ { "label": "Trace the source", "value": "Follow the links to see whether the pages report separate observations or repeat one underlying announcement." }, { "label": "Count the underlying reports", "value": "Three pages quoting one venue notice still give you one notice to check." } ], [ { "label": "Name the exact benefit", "value": "Separate an experience such as “I enjoyed it” from a factual promise such as “it guarantees employment.”" }, { "label": "Match the evidence", "value": "Check support for that specific promise, with expertise and financial interests as context." } ], [ { "label": "Define the check", "value": "Write the one thing you need to decide and what would answer it." }, { "label": "Finish usefully", "value": "Use the source closest to that decision and save the answer with any unresolved detail." } ] ], "pictureLead": "Understand a screenshot or short clip", "watchFor": "This is a reading companion, not a professional assessment of a particular claim. Use it to organize questions, not to diagnose a condition, make a financial commitment or settle a legal dispute. The amount of checking should fit the consequence of being mistaken. For consequential decisions, take the specific claim and supporting material to a suitably qualified person. Keep private information out of public searches and requests for help. Missing links do not, by themselves, make someone’s reported experience false.", "whatPeopleSay": [ "**Practise looking beyond an unfamiliar page.** Lateral reading means checking a source using information outside that source. Joel Breakstone, Sam Wineburg and their colleagues taught this in an online college course. The 87 completing students used the strategy more often and improved their assessment scores after four modules. Using it still did not always produce a correct judgment. A useful practice is to compare a page’s self-description with an independent account, then explain which evidence changed your view. This study did not establish lasting everyday skill in every adult.", "**Treat familiarity as a cue to check the reason.** Lisa Fazio and colleagues found that repeating statements could increase perceived truth even when relevant knowledge was available. They call this an illusory-truth effect: ease of processing can be mistaken for accuracy. It does not mean your memory or knowledge is useless. When a familiar claim feels convincing, ask what supports it besides having heard it before. If you find sound evidence, use it; if you find only the same wording again, keep the two kinds of confidence separate.", "**Give accuracy a moment of attention before sharing.** Gordon Pennycook and David Rand combined 20 experiments from their research program on prompts that direct attention toward accuracy. On average, people became better at distinguishing true from false news in what they said they would share. Before forwarding something useful, ask what your message would lead another person to believe and whether you have support for that claim. The research concerns sharing judgments; it does not show that a brief pause guarantees correctness or permanently changes everyday sharing.", "**Identify when an article is also an advertisement.** Michelle Amazeen studies native advertising: paid material made to resemble the surrounding editorial content. Her public research account describes better recognition when disclosures were more explicit and prominent. For a recommendation, look for who commissioned it and what is being promoted, then assess the actual benefit claimed. Useful information can appear in an advertisement. Recognizing its purpose helps you interpret it without either accepting the claim automatically or rejecting every commercial source.", "**Read the frame around a fact.** Hobbs’s media-literacy framework treats messages as selected representations of reality. A photograph, chart or short paragraph includes some details and leaves others outside the frame. For an ordinary example, “half-price entry” needs a date, eligible visitor and comparison price before it tells you what your visit will cost. Ask which missing detail matters to your question. This is a way to examine a message, not a claim that every omission is deceptive or that appearances can reliably reveal AI-generated material.", "**Make room for well-supported information.** Good judgment involves accepting a sound claim as well as questioning a weak one. Sacha Altay, Andrea De Angelis and Emma Hoes compared different kinds of media-literacy tips and found that constructive trust-oriented tips could improve discernment too. In everyday use, explain why a useful notice or finding deserves your confidence rather than hunting only for a reason to dismiss it. The goal is a better decision, not the largest number of rejected sources." ], "disputedNotes": [ "**Choose whether the source or the specific claim needs checking.** A source-first approach investigates who is speaking; a claim-first approach looks directly for evidence about the assertion. They answer different questions. Lisa Oswald and colleagues compared them in a randomized study of 2,666 German adults. Immediate gains were small, and some were too uncertain to conclude that the lessons helped. At two weeks, scores had improved in all groups, including the comparison group; the study could no longer clearly separate the groups’ results. That does not prove the lessons were forgotten or establish a universal winner. Choose the entry point that addresses your uncertainty.", "**Pair a search with a reason to trust what it returns.** Searching might uncover better evidence, or it might supply more copies of the same weak claim. Aslett and colleagues tested these competing possibilities in five experiments. In the first, people prompted to search were more likely to believe selected false or misleading news than people not encouraged to search. Across the research, this problem was concentrated among people receiving low-quality results. That association does not prove exactly why it happened or test whether trained source-checking would work better. Search systems also change. Look for support whose origin and relevance you can explain, not just apparent agreement.", "**Balance questioning with reasons for confidence.** One approach emphasizes skepticism about doubtful stories; another teaches recognition of trustworthy news; a mixed approach does both. Altay and colleagues tested all three in a US online experiment that recruited 3,919 participants. Each improved headline discernment compared with no tips, and their effects were more alike than different. Mixed tips both increased acceptance of true headlines and reduced acceptance of false ones. These immediate ratings and sharing intentions do not establish permanent behavior or justify trusting every outlet. A constructive check should be able to conclude either “this is supported” or “this needs more evidence.”", "**Use preparation and correction at the moment they help.** Prebunking teaches a misleading technique before someone meets a new example; debunking corrects a claim after exposure. Roozenbeek and van der Linden explain the value of advance preparation, while correction researchers emphasize repairing an existing misunderstanding. Tay and colleagues directly compared pre-emptive and retroactive interventions in an experiment involving fair-trade misinformation and 735 participants. Both generally reduced reliance on misinformation. That does not establish equivalence or a winner across every message and audience. Practising a technique and correcting a particular error can serve different needs." ], "talkNotes": [ "**Let relevant evidence earn your confidence.** A credential, logo or professional-looking page is not a guarantee that every statement is accurate. The Commons Library’s source guide treats expertise as relevant context alongside the actual method and claim. Check whether the expertise fits this question. You can respect someone’s work without treating every subject they discuss as their specialty.", "**Separate repeated wording from new support.** Seeing a claim again does not confirm it. Fazio’s familiarity research helps explain why repetition can feel reassuring, even without better evidence. Ask what has been added: another direct observation, a different analysis, or simply another copy. A familiar statement may be true, but familiarity is not the reason that makes it true.", "**Use a stopping point that fits the decision.** Two links or two minutes do not turn every question into a completed investigation. Caulfield’s method returns attention to purpose and context, not a fixed score. You might settle a routine event date quickly while leaving a complex benefit claim unresolved. Record that distinction instead of forcing every result into a confident yes or no.", "**Use media history as one part of the check.** Content Credentials can provide information about an image’s recorded origin or editing history. The C2PA explainer explicitly distinguishes that history from whether the depicted claim is factual. Credentials do not certify the truth of a caption, and their absence is not proof of a fake. Keep checking what the image is being used to establish." ], "howPeopleRunIt": [ "**Choose one claim and the evidence that would answer it.** Write a single checkable sentence from something you want to use or share. Mantzarlis distinguishes factual claims from opinions: “the workshop starts at six” can be checked against a current schedule; “it looks enjoyable” expresses a judgment. Next to your sentence, name the evidence you need and where you expect to find it. Keep the original wording attached so the question does not drift while you look. This everyday exercise adapts professional fact-checking guidance; it is not an automatic verdict.", "**Compare the shared extract with the original.** In a lesson coauthored by Peter Adams and Suzannah Gonzales, students compare a circulating broadcast screenshot with the original recording. Try the same kind of comparison with an ordinary public notice or quotation: look at the surrounding passage, date and attribution. Note exactly what stays the same and what changes. Finding an older original can clarify context without establishing anyone’s intent.", "**Keep a short conclusion and the unresolved detail.** Caulfield’s SIFT guidance brings a search back to its purpose and original context. Apply that idea by writing what the evidence supports and what you still need to ask. For example: “The organizer lists Saturday; the shared image is from last year; accessibility arrangements are not stated.” Save the current notice beside that conclusion. You now have a specific follow-up question rather than another collection of tabs.", "**Trace one image-backed claim to its source.**\nWrite the claim the picture is being used to support, then look for the original report, date and fuller context. Compare it with an independent source that actually addresses the same event. Visual oddities can give you a reason to check, but a plausible-looking image cannot confirm the story. If the source cannot be established, leave the claim unverified instead of sharing it as fact." ], "howPeopleKeepIt": [ "**Keep the question beside the result.** A source may answer a neighboring question rather than yours. The Commons Library emphasizes relevance and currency. Save the date, the exact claim and the particular passage you used. For a recurring event, an old timetable can explain its history without telling you this weekend’s hours.", "**Distinguish the original message from its journey.** Wardle and Derakhshan separate creation, production and distribution. That makes a useful question when a friend forwards a post: where did the underlying information begin? Preserve a helpful firsthand observation while checking stronger general claims separately. An unavailable original leaves uncertainty; it does not establish falsehood or bad motives.", "**Match the confidence to the scope.** A clear account of what happened to one person can be useful without proving what will happen to everyone. Mantzarlis’s evidence questions include proximity and rigor: how was the information obtained, and what conclusion can it carry? Keep the specific observation, then label the wider inference as an inference rather than quietly upgrading it to a universal rule.", "**Give the recipient enough context to use what you share.** Before forwarding a useful find, include the detail that matters to the other person: which date, location or group it applies to. Pennycook and Rand’s accuracy-prompt work distinguishes sharing judgments from truth itself. Checking your message’s implication is a practical adaptation; it is still worth opening the source rather than relying on a confident caption.", "**Make a correction useful enough to replace the old account.** Stephan Lewandowsky and fellow authors of the Debunking Handbook explain that removing an error can leave a gap in someone’s understanding. State the accurate information and the reason for the correction. For a changed venue, send the new location and the current notice, not just “that was wrong.” This ordinary example does not guarantee agreement or erase every earlier impression." ], "claimsNotes": [ "**Build judgment through practice and explanation.** Claim: “People can learn strategies for evaluating online sources” — established. Breakstone and colleagues observed improvements after an online course with practice and demonstrations. This supports teachability in that setting, not guaranteed lasting expertise from one tip or proof that every later judgment will be correct.", "**Check the quality behind a search result.** Claim: “Searching for a claim always makes my judgment more accurate” — not what the research found. Aslett and colleagues found increased belief in selected misinformation after search prompts. Search can uncover good evidence, but results can also repeat weak information. The act of searching is not itself a verdict.", "**Distinguish a familiar claim from a supported one.** Claim: “Repetition can make a claim feel more truthful” — established. Fazio and colleagues found that repetition could influence perceived truth even when relevant knowledge was available. That is a reason to examine your basis for confidence, not a reason to assume that familiar information is false.", "**Match expertise and evidence to the question.** Claim: “An impressive credential proves a particular claim” — not what the research found. The Commons Library separates expertise from accuracy, relevance and transparent methods. A qualified person can offer valuable guidance while a particular claim still needs evidence. Check the subject and scope, not only the title.", "**Look for performance beyond the first lesson.** Claim: “One brief lesson reliably provides lasting protection from misinformation” — not what the research found. That assurance goes beyond the findings. Oswald’s trial found small immediate gains, with no clear advantage over the comparison group two weeks later. This does not mean instruction never helps; reliable lasting protection from one lesson remains unproven.", "**Count independent support rather than matching pages.** Claim: “Two matching links are enough to verify any claim” — popular talk. Two pages can repeat one underlying message, and different questions need different evidence. Wardle and Derakhshan’s creation-and-distribution distinction helps trace that dependence. Agreement is useful to investigate; it is not a universal completion rule.", "**Check the image, the source, and the claim separately.** Claim: “If a photo looks real, the headline is true” — not what the research found. Guo, Swire-Thompson and Hu found that specific tips for spotting AI-generated images improved discernment, while both specific and general tips also reduced belief in real headlines. Realistic pictures can accompany false claims, and missing visual glitches do not prove authenticity. Hobbs and C2PA keep appearance, file history, and factual checking as separate questions. Look at the image, then still check who published it and what independent record supports the claim." ], "deepDive": [ "**Explain why an outside source changes your judgment.** Breakstone and Wineburg’s course included demonstrations of how evaluators reasoned about sources. Try making that reasoning visible in an everyday case. Suppose a course advertises recognition by an organization, and you find that organization’s own list of recognized courses. A matching entry supports the recognition claim; a testimonial about enjoying the course answers a different question. Neither tells you whether its timetable suits you. Write which claim the outside record answers and what remains open. That is the useful work of looking beyond the advert, rather than simply collecting another link.", "**Choose a source for the part it can actually know.** A venue knows its current opening arrangements; an attendee can describe the experience of visiting; a researcher may examine broader patterns. These are different contributions. The Commons Library recommends relevant expertise, stated methods and appropriate scope. Ask what the source can directly support, then seek another kind of evidence for the unanswered part. A useful answer can combine official records with well-described personal experience.", "**Read the condition attached to a quotation.** Adams and Gonzales’s broadcast-comparison lesson gives a useful way to examine a clipped statement. Imagine a meeting report quoting “the room will be available,” while the full answer continues “if the repairs finish by Friday.” The quotation may copy the words correctly, but the longer answer describes a condition rather than a confirmed booking. Check whether that condition has since been met. The original recording resolves what was said; it does not, by itself, establish today’s availability or explain why someone shared the shorter version.", "**Separate a commercial purpose from the claim’s evidence.** Amazeen’s work shows why advertising styled as editorial content can be difficult to recognize. A sponsorship label tells you something important about purpose, but it does not test the promised benefit. Read what is actually claimed, who benefits, and what independent evidence is supplied. A practical product demonstration can still be informative; the stronger the promise, the more important it is to distinguish the demonstration from the conclusion drawn from it.", "**Check what a media credential actually records.** Provenance is an account of where an asset came from and how it changed. C2PA’s versioned explainer describes credentials that can help establish aspects of that history, not a universal truth detector. A genuine photograph of a real event can still be paired with an incorrect place or date. Conversely, a missing credential may simply mean no such record was attached or preserved. Ask which part of your claim the available history supports.", "**Learn the reasoning behind a manipulative technique.** Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden describe prebunking as more than a general warning to be suspicious. Their explanation combines advance warning, a weakened example of a persuasive technique and a way to answer it. As a simple illustration, a choice presented as “this option or nothing” deserves a check for other available options. The example teaches a question to ask; it does not make every two-option choice false or provide permanent immunity from persuasion.", "**Give a corrected fact an explanation it can fit into.** Briony Swire-Thompson and Emily Vraga coauthored the Debunking Handbook, which explains why an old account can keep influencing later reasoning. Imagine hearing that a workshop was canceled because nobody enrolled. Learning that many people enrolled removes one claim but leaves the cancellation unexplained, so the old story may still come to mind. If the organizer confirms a building repair caused the cancellation, include that explanation and its source. This example illustrates how an accurate account fills the gap; inventing a convenient reason would create a new problem.", "**Keep track of what changes your judgment.** Oswald and colleagues treated searching for information and judging it accurately as separate outcomes. Your own notes can make a similar distinction. After a check, record your starting conclusion, the detail that changed it and the question still open. You might discover that ten extra pages added nothing, while a date on the original notice settled your practical question. This is a reflection exercise, not a test score. A useful record names the evidence that mattered rather than treating confidence or time spent searching as proof of accuracy.", "**Separate an image clue from verification of the story.**\nGuo and colleagues analyzed 1,012 people rating 40 headline-and-photo items: true headlines had real photos, while false headlines had AI-generated photos. Specific visual-literacy tips improved discernment in that test, with mixed-model evidence of lower belief in the false items. This design tested the combined story and image; it did not isolate image authenticity. The materials also omitted normal feed cues such as sources and engagement, and the outcome was measured immediately. Treat visible artifacts as a prompt to investigate. Tracing the original event and checking independent reporting remains useful when newer generators produce convincing pictures." ], "related": [ "learning", "attention", "career" ], "watchForLong": [ "**Good to know.** This is a reading companion, not a professional assessment of a particular claim. Use it to organize questions, not to diagnose a condition, make a financial commitment or settle a legal dispute. The amount of checking should fit the consequence of being mistaken. For consequential decisions, take the specific claim and supporting material to a suitably qualified person. Keep private information out of public searches and requests for help. Missing links do not, by themselves, make someone’s reported experience false.", "**Not advice.** Named sources. Honest paraphrase of the finding. Not medical, legal, or financial advice." ], "sources": [ "**Sam Wineburg.** Stanford professor emeritus and Digital Inquiry Group cofounder. His source-evaluation research and public teaching inform lateral reading. Student and instructional findings do not establish a universal truth detector.", "**Joel Breakstone.** Digital Inquiry Group executive director and education researcher. His online-course work connects explanations with practice and demonstrations. Using a checking strategy more often does not necessarily mean using it correctly.", "**Mike Caulfield.** Creator of SIFT and a public educator on web research. His method helps a reader recover purpose and context. It is practical guidance, not an independently validated time limit for every question.", "**Lisa Fazio.** Vanderbilt psychologist researching learning and belief. Her work explains how familiarity can influence perceived truth even when knowledge is available. It does not say knowledge is useless or estimate an individual’s susceptibility.", "**Gordon Pennycook.** Cornell psychologist studying judgment and misinformation. His accuracy-prompt research separates attention to accuracy from automatic belief. Sharing judgments remain different from verified real-world behavior.", "**David Rand.** Cornell researcher in behavioral and computational social science. His coauthored accuracy studies examine what people choose to share. Disclosed advising relationships with technology companies are context, not evidence for or against a particular finding.", "**Sander van der Linden.** Cambridge social psychologist and public educator on persuasion. His prebunking explanation teaches a technique and the reasoning needed to answer it. Immunity is a metaphor, not a guarantee of permanent protection.", "**Stephan Lewandowsky.** University of Bristol cognitive psychologist and Debunking Handbook coauthor. His contribution here is explaining why a correction should also supply an accurate account. A research-informed correction cannot promise another person’s agreement.", "**Briony Swire-Thompson.** Northeastern researcher studying correction and belief. Her contribution to the Debunking Handbook helps distinguish remembering a correction from fully revising later reasoning. It is not a clinical or interpersonal treatment protocol.", "**Emily Vraga.** University of Minnesota communication researcher and Debunking Handbook coauthor. Her work brings correction into communication settings. Message, platform and audience differences limit all-purpose prescriptions.", "**Michelle Amazeen.** Boston University communication researcher. Her public account of native-advertising studies helps separate editorial appearance from commercial purpose. Detecting sponsorship does not settle whether a product claim is accurate.", "**Claire Wardle.** Cornell communication scholar and public information-literacy educator. Her work with Hossein Derakhshan distinguishes a message’s creation, production and circulation. That framework does not license guessing a sharer’s motives.", "**Peter Adams.** News Literacy Project research and design leader. A lesson he coauthored asks readers to compare a circulating screenshot with the original broadcast. It is a concrete teaching example, not evidence that a brief check works on every image.", "**Alexios Mantzarlis.** Cornell Tech SETS director and former International Fact-Checking Network leader. His UNESCO chapter distinguishes checkable claims from opinions and examines the quality of supporting evidence. It offers professional method, not an automatic verdict.", "**Renee Hobbs.** University of Rhode Island professor and Media Education Lab founder. Her framework distinguishes selected representations, authenticity and factual checking. It is a way to question a message, not a visual AI-detection test." ], "sourceLinks": { "INFO-LATERAL-2021": { "name": "Breakstone, Smith, Connors, Ortega, Kerr and Wineburg.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course, February 23, 2021", "href": "https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/" } ] }, "INFO-ADULT-2026": { "name": "Oswald, Kozyreva, Herzog, Nickl and Hertwig.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Boosting Media Literacy Using Lateral Reading and Online Search Interventions, August 2026 issue", "href": "https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/psychological-science/09567976261453813/" } ] }, "INFO-SEARCH-2023": { "name": "Sanderson and Aslett.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Online search results can increase belief in misinformation, Nature research briefing, December 20, 2023", "href": "https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-023-03665-4/d41586-023-03665-4.pdf" } ] }, "INFO-ACCURACY-2022": { "name": "Pennycook and Rand.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation, April 28, 2022", "href": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35484277/" } ] }, "INFO-FAMILIARITY-2015": { "name": "Fazio, Brashier, Payne and Marsh.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth, online August 24, 2015; October issue", "href": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/" } ] }, "INFO-CONSTRUCTIVE-2024": { "name": "Altay, De Angelis and Hoes.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media, August 14, 2024", "href": "https://d-nb.info/1346902364/34" } ] }, "INFO-COMMONS-2026": { "name": "Campbell Brooks, House of Commons Library.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "How to evaluate sources, May 5, 2026", "href": "https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10822/" } ] }, "INFO-SIFT-2019": { "name": "Mike Caulfield.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "SIFT (The Four Moves), June 19, 2019", "href": "https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/" } ] }, "INFO-CORRECTION-2020": { "name": "Lewandowsky and 21 coauthors.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "The Debunking Handbook 2020", "href": "https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DebunkingHandbook2020.pdf" } ] }, "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2": { "name": "Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer, version 2.2", "href": "https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/explainer/Explainer.html" } ] }, "INFO-ADVERTISING-2018": { "name": "Michelle Amazeen.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Content Confusion in an Era of Fake News, February20,2018", "href": "https://www.bu.edu/articles/2018/content-confusion-in-an-era-of-fake-news/" } ] }, "INFO-DISORDER-2017": { "name": "Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Information Disorder, 2017 report; August2018 edition", "href": "https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-version-august-2018/16808c9c77" } ] }, "INFO-RECORDING-2019": { "name": "Peter Adams and Suzannah Gonzales.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "The Sift, September23,2019: original-broadcast screenshot comparison lesson", "href": "https://newslit.org/news-and-research/the-sift-nyt-and-kavanaugh-ukrainian-facebook-network-how-ads-support-disinformation/" } ] }, "INFO-FACTCHECKING-2018": { "name": "Alexios Mantzarlis.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Fact-checking 101, Module5 in UNESCO’s Journalism, Fake News and Disinformation, 2018", "href": "https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0.pdf" } ] }, "INFO-REPRESENTATION-2021": { "name": "Renee Hobbs.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Media Literacy Concepts and Definitions, public excerpts from Media Literacy in Action (2021)", "href": "https://mediaeducationlab.com/media-literacy-concepts-and-definitions" } ] }, "INFO-PREBUNKING-2021": { "name": "Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Debunking versus prebunking, 2021", "href": "https://inoculation.science/debunking-versus-prebunking/" } ] }, "INFO-COMPARISON-2022": { "name": "Tay, Hurlstone, Kurz and Ecker.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation, first online December29,2021; August2022 issue", "href": "https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjop.12551" } ] }, "GUO-AIVM-2025": { "name": "Guo S, Swire-Thompson B, Hu X. Specific media literacy tips improve AI-generated visual misinformation discernment. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2025;10:38.", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "DOI", "href": "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-025-00648-z" }, { "label": "PMC full text", "href": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12229391/" }, { "label": "PubMed", "href": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40608186/" } ] }, "WINEBURG-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Sam Wineburg", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "DIG people", "href": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people" } ] }, "BREAKSTONE-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Joel Breakstone", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "DIG people", "href": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people" } ] }, "CAULFIELD-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Mike Caulfield", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Author biography", "href": "https://hapgood.us/about/" } ] }, "FAZIO-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Lisa Fazio", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "University expert profile", "href": "https://news.vanderbilt.edu/experts/expertprofile/?expert_username=lisa.fazio2" } ] }, "PENNYCOOK-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Gordon Pennycook", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Cornell profile", "href": "https://psychology.cornell.edu/gordon-pennycook" } ] }, "RAND-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "David Rand", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Cornell profile", "href": "https://business.cornell.edu/profiles/dgr7/" } ] }, "VANDERLINDEN-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Sander van der Linden", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Cambridge profile", "href": "https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/sander-van-der-linden/" } ] }, "LEWANDOWSKY-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Stephan Lewandowsky", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Bristol profile", "href": "https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Stephan-Lewandowsky-ebfa6836-6895-4acf-b57b-b2acdf30ec99/" } ] }, "SWIRETHOMPSON-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Briony Swire-Thompson", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Northeastern profile", "href": "https://cos.northeastern.edu/people/briony-swire-thompson/" } ] }, "VRAGA-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Emily Vraga", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "University profile", "href": "https://hubbardschool.umn.edu/ekvraga" } ] }, "AMAZEEN-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Michelle Amazeen", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "BU profile", "href": "https://www.bu.edu/com/profile/michelle-amazeen/" } ] }, "WARDLE-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Claire Wardle", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Cornell profile", "href": "https://cals.cornell.edu/people/claire-wardle" } ] }, "ADAMS-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Peter Adams", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "NLP team profile", "href": "https://newslit.org/team/peter-adams/" } ] }, "MANTZARLIS-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Alexios Mantzarlis", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "Cornell Tech profile", "href": "https://tech.cornell.edu/people/alexios-mantzarlis/" } ] }, "HOBBS-INFORMATION-2026": { "name": "Renee Hobbs", "kind": "professional", "links": [ { "label": "URI profile", "href": "https://web.uri.edu/harrington/meet/renee-hobbs/" } ] }, "GUO-AIVM-METHODS": { "name": "Guo et al. full-text methods and discussion. Source", "kind": "evidence", "links": [ { "label": "Source", "href": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12229391/" } ] } }, "sourceClaims": { "watchFor": [ "INFO-COMMONS-2026", "INFO-FACTCHECKING-2018" ], "situations.clip": [ "INFO-REPRESENTATION-2021", "HOBBS-INFORMATION-2026" ], "situations.repeat": [ "INFO-DISORDER-2017", "WARDLE-INFORMATION-2026" ], "situations.recommendation": [ "INFO-FACTCHECKING-2018", "MANTZARLIS-INFORMATION-2026" ], "situations.overwhelm": [ "INFO-SIFT-2019", "CAULFIELD-INFORMATION-2026" ], "split.established.0": [ "INFO-LATERAL-2021", "BREAKSTONE-INFORMATION-2026", "WINEBURG-INFORMATION-2026" ], "split.established.1": [ "INFO-FAMILIARITY-2015", "FAZIO-INFORMATION-2026" ], "split.established.2": [ "INFO-ACCURACY-2022", "PENNYCOOK-INFORMATION-2026", "RAND-INFORMATION-2026" ], "split.established.3": [ "INFO-ADVERTISING-2018", "AMAZEEN-INFORMATION-2026" ], "split.established.4": [ "INFO-REPRESENTATION-2021" ], "split.established.5": [ "INFO-CONSTRUCTIVE-2024" ], "split.disputed.0": [ "INFO-ADULT-2026" ], "split.disputed.1": [ "INFO-SEARCH-2023" ], "split.disputed.2": [ "INFO-CONSTRUCTIVE-2024" ], "split.disputed.3": [ "INFO-PREBUNKING-2021", "INFO-COMPARISON-2022" ], "split.talk.0": [ "INFO-COMMONS-2026" ], "split.talk.1": [ "INFO-FAMILIARITY-2015" ], "split.talk.2": [ "INFO-SIFT-2019" ], "split.talk.3": [ "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2" ], "move": [ "INFO-FACTCHECKING-2018" ], "try.0": [ "INFO-RECORDING-2019", "ADAMS-INFORMATION-2026" ], "try.1": [ "INFO-SIFT-2019" ], "try.2": [ "GUO-AIVM-2025", "INFO-SIFT-2019", "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2", "CAULFIELD-INFORMATION-2026", "SWIRETHOMPSON-INFORMATION-2026" ], "keep.0": [ "INFO-COMMONS-2026" ], "keep.1": [ "INFO-DISORDER-2017" ], "keep.2": [ "INFO-FACTCHECKING-2018" ], "keep.3": [ "INFO-ACCURACY-2022" ], "keep.4": [ "INFO-CORRECTION-2020", "LEWANDOWSKY-INFORMATION-2026" ], "deep.0": [ "INFO-LATERAL-2021" ], "deep.1": [ "INFO-COMMONS-2026" ], "deep.2": [ "INFO-RECORDING-2019" ], "deep.3": [ "INFO-ADVERTISING-2018" ], "deep.4": [ "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2" ], "deep.5": [ "INFO-PREBUNKING-2021", "VANDERLINDEN-INFORMATION-2026" ], "deep.6": [ "INFO-CORRECTION-2020", "SWIRETHOMPSON-INFORMATION-2026", "VRAGA-INFORMATION-2026" ], "deep.7": [ "INFO-ADULT-2026" ], "deep.8": [ "GUO-AIVM-2025", "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2", "INFO-REPRESENTATION-2021", "HOBBS-INFORMATION-2026", "SWIRETHOMPSON-INFORMATION-2026", "GUO-AIVM-METHODS", "INFO-SIFT-2019" ], "claims.0": [ "INFO-LATERAL-2021" ], "claims.1": [ "INFO-SEARCH-2023" ], "claims.2": [ "INFO-FAMILIARITY-2015" ], "claims.3": [ "INFO-COMMONS-2026" ], "claims.4": [ "INFO-ADULT-2026" ], "claims.5": [ "INFO-DISORDER-2017" ], "claims.6": [ "GUO-AIVM-2025", "INFO-REPRESENTATION-2021", "INFO-PROVENANCE-2.2", "HOBBS-INFORMATION-2026" ] }, "sourceSituationKeys": [ "situations.clip", "situations.repeat", "situations.recommendation", "situations.overwhelm" ], "professionalSourceIds": [ "WINEBURG-INFORMATION-2026", "BREAKSTONE-INFORMATION-2026", "CAULFIELD-INFORMATION-2026", "FAZIO-INFORMATION-2026", "PENNYCOOK-INFORMATION-2026", "RAND-INFORMATION-2026", "VANDERLINDEN-INFORMATION-2026", "LEWANDOWSKY-INFORMATION-2026", "SWIRETHOMPSON-INFORMATION-2026", "VRAGA-INFORMATION-2026", "AMAZEEN-INFORMATION-2026", "WARDLE-INFORMATION-2026", "ADAMS-INFORMATION-2026", "MANTZARLIS-INFORMATION-2026", "HOBBS-INFORMATION-2026" ], "housePointers": [], "positiveGuidance": { "status": "DONE", "reviewedAt": "2026-09-05", "professionalCount": 15, "scope": "content-reviewed-local-only" }, "learnArticle": { "article": { "format_version": 5, "presentation": "complete-card", "overview": "To make sense of an online claim, identify exactly what it says, find the evidence and context behind it, and decide what that evidence can support. Check the source, the specific assertion and any accompanying image separately. You can accept useful information with reasons, leave a question open, and stop when the check is enough for the decision.", "sections": [ { "id": "start-with-the-claim", "role": "explanation", "title": "What exactly are you trying to find out?", "intro": "Information literacy is the ability to judge what an online message supports and use it appropriately. You do not have to become an expert in every subject. Start with the decision in front of you.", "items": [ { "label": "Recover the full message behind a screenshot", "text": "A friend sends a cropped notice saying a workshop is free. Before you rearrange your day, find the complete announcement: free for whom, on what date, and with which conditions? Renee Hobbs's media-literacy framework separates a message's apparent realism from factual checking. A genuine screenshot can omit the line that makes an offer understandable. Other formats select context too: a camera points somewhere, a chart chooses a time range, and a quotation ends at a particular word. Ask which missing detail would change your decision. The original restores what was said; a current organizer notice tells you whether it still applies. These may be different records. Selection is unavoidable and does not by itself show an intent to mislead.", "source_ids": [ "media-context", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Follow matching pages to their underlying evidence", "text": "Three websites saying an event starts at six might all quote the same announcement. Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan distinguish creating a message, producing it as media and distributing it. Those stages can involve different people, so the person who forwards a post may know little about its origin. Follow the attributed report, interview or document, and see what each additional page contributes. Independent support means evidence gathered separately; a rewritten press release is another copy of the same evidence. Multiple links may help you locate the original, but their number does not by itself settle the question. Keep uncertainty about the origin separate from an accusation about the sharer.", "source_ids": [ "disorder" ] }, { "label": "Turn an expert recommendation into a checkable question", "text": "An expert or creator may offer a personal experience, an opinion and a factual promise in the same sentence. Alexios Mantzarlis's UNESCO fact-checking module starts by identifying assertions that evidence can actually test. 'I enjoyed the workshop' tells you about one experience; 'everyone who attends gets a job' asserts a general outcome. Respect the experience while asking what supports the promise. Look for expertise relevant to that outcome and a method that could establish it, such as a clearly described record of participant outcomes. Sponsorship gives you context about purpose; it neither proves the promise nor automatically makes it false. A polished page and an impressive title are starting clues, not completed checks.", "source_ids": [ "fact-check", "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Set the purpose before you open another tab", "text": "There is a difference between finding Saturday's opening time and investigating whether a training program improves employment. Write the question in a single sentence and describe what evidence would answer it. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method begins with stopping: notice what you know about a source, and return to your purpose when checking wanders. Its other moves investigate the source, seek better coverage and trace original context. They are ways to recover meaning, not a requirement to perform the same number of searches every time. For an event date, the organizer's current schedule may resolve the decision. For an uncertain benefit, the useful conclusion may be that more appropriate evidence or professional help is needed.", "source_ids": [ "sift" ] } ] }, { "id": "what-checking-research-shows", "role": "findings", "title": "What helps people judge information?", "intro": "Discernment means telling better-supported information apart from weaker or false information. It improves only when judgment changes in the appropriate direction; rejecting everything is not success.", "items": [ { "label": "Build source judgment with modeled practice", "text": "Lateral reading means leaving an unfamiliar page to learn about it from other sources. Joel Breakstone, Sam Wineburg and colleagues embedded four roughly hour-long modules in a college course, including demonstrations of evaluators' reasoning and practice. Among 87 completing students, more used lateral reading afterward and assessment performance improved. Some still reached incorrect conclusions despite looking elsewhere. This was a counterbalanced before-and-after course study, not a randomized comparison with an untreated group. It supports teachability in that setting, not permanent expertise in every adult. Practise explaining why an outside record answers the claim rather than congratulating yourself for opening it.", "source_ids": [ "lateral" ] }, { "label": "Ask what supports a familiar statement", "text": "The illusory-truth effect is the tendency for repetition to make a statement feel more accurate. Lisa Fazio and colleagues' two experiments found this even when relevant knowledge was available: ease of processing could influence a truth rating. That does not make knowledge useless, and it does not make a familiar claim false. It means the feeling of recognition and the evidence for accuracy are different things. When a familiar claim seems obvious, name its basis: a reliable record, a directly relevant finding, or repeated wording? Keep the first two when they fit. Treat the last as a reason to inspect the support.", "source_ids": [ "familiarity" ] }, { "label": "Bring accuracy into the sharing decision", "text": "Sharing is a choice about what another person will receive, not simply a report of what you believe. Gordon Pennycook and David Rand combined 20 US experiments from their own research program, conducted from 2017 to 2020. Prompts directing attention toward accuracy improved average sharing discernment, mainly by reducing intentions to share false headlines. This is an internal meta-analysis, not 20 independent research teams, and it does not prove lasting behavior from a brief pause. Before forwarding a useful post, consider the belief your caption would create. A practical accuracy question is whether the evidence supports that implication, including its date and scope.", "source_ids": [ "accuracy" ] }, { "label": "Recognize paid material while testing its promise", "text": "Native advertising is promotional material designed to resemble the articles or posts surrounding it. In an authored research account, Michelle Amazeen described experiments in which explicit, prominent disclosures improved recognition of advertising. The result concerns recognizing commercial purpose; it does not establish whether the promoted benefit works. A sponsor label helps you understand who paid for the message. Next, look for evidence addressing the promised result. A demonstration may show how a product operates while leaving its comparative performance unanswered. The underlying experiments are historical, so the finding should not be turned into a current estimate of how often people recognize advertisements on every platform.", "source_ids": [ "ad-recognition" ] }, { "label": "Use corrections to supply an accurate replacement", "text": "The Debunking Handbook, coauthored by Stephan Lewandowsky, Briony Swire-Thompson, Emily Vraga and other researchers, explains continued influence: an old account can affect later reasoning even after it is corrected. A clear accurate alternative can fill the explanatory gap. If a workshop moved, communicate the current venue and source rather than sending only 'that location is wrong.' If the reason for the move is known, explain it; if it is unknown, say so. Inventing a convenient reason introduces another unsupported claim. This is research-informed communication guidance, not a guarantee that a recipient will agree or forget the earlier account.", "source_ids": [ "correction" ] } ] }, { "id": "choose-a-checking-method", "role": "perspectives", "title": "Which approach fits the uncertainty?", "intro": "The field studies several approaches, and their results depend on the task, instruction and audience. These are practical alternatives with real limits, rather than one method that settles every case.", "items": [ { "label": "Choose source checking or claim checking deliberately", "text": "If your uncertainty is 'who is this publisher?', investigate the source. If it is 'did this event happen?', search for direct evidence about that event. Lisa Oswald and colleagues compared source-focused lateral-reading instruction with claim-focused search instruction in 2,666 German adults. Immediate improvements were small and some estimates were uncertain. Around two weeks later, all groups had improved and differences from the control group were no longer distinguishable. Controls also received debriefing, so this is not proof that participants forgot the lessons. The study establishes neither a universal winner nor lasting protection. Choose the entry point that addresses the gap you can identify.", "source_ids": [ "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Evaluate search results instead of treating search as proof", "text": "Looking up a claim can reveal an authoritative record, but it can also turn up a cluster of weak pages repeating it. Sanderson and Aslett's author briefing describes five experiments with selected news in the United States. Encouragement to search increased belief in false or misleading articles; the effect was concentrated among people whose results contained low-quality sources. That association does not by itself establish the exact mechanism. The experiments ran in 2019–2021, and search systems change. Oswald's later German study found no search backfire in its task. The useful lesson is to inspect the evidence search delivers, rather than assuming searching must help or must harm.", "source_ids": [ "search-quality", "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Look for reasons to accept reliable information", "text": "Media-literacy teaching can emphasize skepticism, justified trust, or both. Sacha Altay, Andrea De Angelis and Emma Hoes tested these approaches in a preregistered US experiment that recruited 3,919 participants. All three improved immediate headline discernment; their effects were more alike than different. Mixed tips helped with acceptance of true news and rejection of false news. These were accuracy ratings or stated willingness to share, not proof of permanent habits. A constructive check therefore asks what would warrant confidence as well as what would weaken it. If the current organizer's schedule directly answers your question, recognizing that support is part of good judgment.", "source_ids": [ "constructive" ] }, { "label": "Use preparation and correction for their different jobs", "text": "Prebunking prepares you for a misleading technique before encountering it; debunking corrects a particular error after exposure. Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden describe preparation using advance warning, a weakened example of a technique and a response to it. Separately, Tay and colleagues compared pre-emptive and retroactive interventions in a fair-trade misinformation experiment with 735 participants. Both generally reduced reliance on misinformation. That limited comparison does not establish equivalence or one winner across audiences. Learn a technique when it helps you recognize a pattern, and correct an existing misunderstanding when there is a specific fact to replace.", "source_ids": [ "prebunk", "predebunk-comparison" ] } ] }, { "id": "use-evidence-in-real-life", "role": "application", "title": "How to connect evidence to an ordinary decision", "intro": "The examples below are original illustrations, not actual incidents or experimentally validated exercises. Each shows how to preserve useful detail while keeping the conclusion within the evidence.", "items": [ { "label": "Use an outside record for the claim it answers", "text": "Imagine a course advertises recognition by a professional organization. You find the organization's own list, match the exact course and confirm that the listing is current. That supports recognition; it does not establish job placement, teaching quality or whether the timetable suits you. A former attendee's detailed account can help with the experience, while an outcomes study would address a different promise. Breakstone and Wineburg's instructional research makes evaluator reasoning visible. Apply that principle by explaining which part of your conclusion the outside record changed. Check the exact course name: a similar name is not a matching entry.\n\nThe advert also says graduates are 'job ready.' Ask what that means and what evidence the provider uses. You have confirmed recognition, while the employment promise remains unresolved; a testimonial about enjoyable lessons answers a different question.\n\nSuppose the provider supplies an outcomes report that combines several courses. Before applying its headline to this one, check which graduates, dates and outcomes were counted. If the specific result remains unavailable, the conclusion stays limited to verified recognition. This is an invented verification path, not a report about an actual provider. Its stopping point is a clearly bounded answer, even when every promotional promise cannot be settled.", "source_ids": [ "lateral", "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Combine official records with scoped firsthand experience", "text": "A venue can state its opening arrangements; an attendee can describe noise, queues or the experience of visiting; a researcher can investigate broader patterns. Choose a source for what it can reasonably know. The Commons Library guide emphasizes relevant expertise, currency and transparent methods. Mantzarlis also asks how close evidence is to the phenomenon. An attendee's account need not have a citation to be useful as an account, but one enjoyable visit cannot guarantee everyone's experience. Ask about the date and circumstances if they matter. Preserve the observation, and label a wider conclusion as an inference. A mixed answer can be useful without pretending all its parts have identical evidential weight.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "fact-check" ] }, { "label": "Read the condition attached to a quoted answer", "text": "Suppose a meeting clip ends after 'the room will be available.' The full answer continues 'if repairs finish by Friday.' The booking is conditional. Caulfield's tracing move and Hobbs's context framework help recover that condition; you then need a current update to know whether it was met. Keep two dates separate: when the statement was made and when availability must be confirmed. The original recording settles what was said, while the update answers whether you can book the room now.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "media-context" ] }, { "label": "Read the evidence behind a sponsored demonstration", "text": "Imagine an advertisement shows a tool completing one task quickly and concludes that it always saves hours. The visible demonstration supports the fact that the shown task was performed under those conditions; the broad claim needs more support. Check the comparison, setup, unshown preparation and whether the result was measured consistently. Amazeen's disclosure research helps identify the promotional setting, while Mantzarlis's evidence framework helps assess the inference. Funding can shape the selection of examples, but the remedy is to inspect the method, not automatically invert the claim. Save the precise result that is supported and separate it from the sales conclusion. This remains evidence evaluation, not a buying recommendation.", "source_ids": [ "ad-recognition", "fact-check" ] }, { "label": "Read Content Credentials as recorded history", "text": "Provenance means an account of an asset's origin and changes. C2PA Content Credentials can supply tamper-evident statements about parts of that history. The version 2.2 explainer says this does not determine whether the depicted information is factually true; history may be incomplete and metadata can be removed. A photograph from a real event can still appear under an incorrect date or place. An absent credential therefore leaves a history question open rather than proving forgery. Ask who signed the record, what it actually says and which part of your claim it supports. Then compare the caption with records of the event. File history and factual context answer different questions.", "source_ids": [ "provenance" ] }, { "label": "Use image clues to begin verification of the story", "text": "Guo, Swire-Thompson and Hu studied 1,012 US adults rating 40 headline/photo pairs: true headlines with real pictures and false headlines with AI-generated pictures. Specific tips about abnormal details, incoherent text and foreground/background patterns improved discernment; both specific and general tips also reduced belief in real headlines. The task measured the combined story and image immediately, without ordinary source or engagement cues. It did not isolate image-authenticity skill. Generators change, so neither missing glitches nor a plausible face verifies a picture. State the claim the image supposedly establishes, look for its earliest available context and independent reporting of the same event, and leave it unverified when that support is missing.", "source_ids": [ "ai-images", "provenance" ] }, { "label": "Identify the missing option in a persuasive choice", "text": "Imagine a post presents a decision as 'buy this course or remain uninformed.' A false dichotomy is an argument that presents too few options as if they exhaust the possibilities. You may also be able to use a public library, a free explanation or another course. Roozenbeek and van der Linden's prebunking account teaches a warning, a manageable example and a way to answer the technique. Practise asking which options were left out, then examine them. This does not show that every two-option decision is manipulative; sometimes two options really are all that remain. Recognizing the technique gives you a question to investigate, not immunity from persuasion or a verdict on the speaker's intent.", "source_ids": [ "prebunk" ] }, { "label": "Share the replacement fact with enough context", "text": "Imagine people believe a workshop was canceled because nobody enrolled. An official notice says a building repair caused the cancellation. A helpful correction supplies the actual reason, current arrangements and the notice, rather than merely denying the enrollment rumor. If the notice confirms cancellation but gives no reason, keep the reason unresolved. The Debunking Handbook explains why a replacement account can help when the old story filled an explanatory gap. Before sending it, check what the recipient needs: location, date and affected group may matter more than your entire search history. Treat accuracy as part of communicating. A clear correction is useful even when you cannot guarantee agreement or erase every earlier impression.", "source_ids": [ "correction", "accuracy" ] }, { "label": "Save the evidence that changed your mind", "text": "Keep a short record of the exact claim, relevant date, supporting passage and remaining question. Suppose ten event roundups add no new evidence, but the current organizer notice states the correct Saturday. Write that result alongside any unresolved accessibility arrangement and its follow-up contact. Caulfield's stopping principle returns attention to purpose; the Commons Library guide keeps relevance and currency in view. The record is an editorial reflection exercise, not a tested scoring system. It allows you to distinguish time spent from evidence gained. When circumstances change, revisit the particular fact that became outdated instead of starting the whole investigation again. This also gives another person a conclusion they can inspect.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "source-evaluation" ] } ] }, { "id": "test-common-claims", "role": "findings", "title": "Check these common claims", "intro": "These verdicts describe the named evidence. They are a reading companion for recurring claims, not an automated assessment of a new post.", "items": [ { "label": "Learn strategies and keep practicing their reasoning", "text": "Claim: 'People can learn strategies for evaluating online sources.' Verdict: established in the studied instructional setting. Breakstone and colleagues found better strategy use and assessment performance after an online college course. Using a strategy still did not always produce correct judgments. Treat the result as a reason to practise, not a promise that one tip turns anyone into an expert.", "source_ids": [ "lateral" ] }, { "label": "Inspect what a search actually adds", "text": "Claim: 'Searching for a claim always makes my judgment more accurate.' Verdict: not supported. Aslett and colleagues' experiments contradict the word 'always'; Oswald's later task also shows that outcomes differ by setting. Search is a route to evidence. It does not become evidence of accuracy merely because you performed it.", "source_ids": [ "search-quality", "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Separate recognition from factual support", "text": "Claim: 'Repetition can make a claim feel more truthful.' Verdict: established in Fazio and colleagues' experiments. Familiarity influenced ratings even with relevant knowledge available. This is a tendency in the studied tasks, not proof that every repeated claim is wrong or that you personally cannot use your knowledge.", "source_ids": [ "familiarity" ] }, { "label": "Match expertise to the particular assertion", "text": "Claim: 'An impressive credential proves a particular claim.' Verdict: not supported. Relevant expertise can contribute useful evidence, but the Commons Library's framework also examines accuracy, method, transparency and scope. A specialist's title cannot establish every statement, especially outside that person's field. Check the assertion and evidence together.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Look beyond the first lesson for durable benefit", "text": "Claim: 'One brief lesson reliably provides lasting protection from misinformation.' Verdict: not supported by the evidence here. Oswald's trial did not show clear treatment-control differences at follow-up. Because the control group improved too, that is not evidence of proven forgetting. It leaves the guarantee of lasting protection unestablished.", "source_ids": [ "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Count independent evidence rather than matching links", "text": "Claim: 'Two matching links are enough to verify any claim.' Verdict: talk. They may repeat one source and different questions require different kinds of evidence. Wardle and Derakhshan's distinction between creation and distribution helps explain this dependency. Useful corroboration has an identifiable contribution; a universal link count cannot establish it.", "source_ids": [ "disorder" ] }, { "label": "Check a photograph and its caption separately", "text": "Claim: 'If a photo looks real, the headline is true.' Verdict: not supported. Guo's experiment tested headline/photo pairs, not an all-purpose image detector. Hobbs separates apparent realism from factual checking, and C2PA separates recorded history from factual truth. A convincing image can still accompany an unsupported caption. Find evidence for the event the caption asserts.", "source_ids": [ "ai-images", "media-context", "provenance" ] } ] }, { "id": "complete-one-useful-check", "role": "next_steps", "title": "One useful check to try now", "intro": "Choose an ordinary public claim you want to use or share. Keep this exercise small enough to finish with a clear result.", "items": [ { "label": "Write one claim and the evidence it needs", "text": "Your move: copy a single checkable sentence, then write the decision it affects and what evidence would answer it. Keep a personal judgment, such as whether an event is enjoyable, separate from a factual claim about its arrangements. Mantzarlis's distinction between assertions and opinions helps define the target; Caulfield's purpose check keeps the search relevant. Keep the original wording beside your question so the investigation stays focused.", "source_ids": [ "fact-check", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Try comparing the extract with its original", "text": "Find the complete public notice, passage or recording and compare its date, audience, qualifications and conditions with the shared extract. Write the specific detail that changes or confirms your interpretation. This applies the context checks taught by Hobbs and Caulfield. If the original is unavailable, record that gap rather than declaring the report false. A missing source can prevent verification of a claim without invalidating every experience described in the message.", "source_ids": [ "media-context", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Try tracing an image and saving a scoped conclusion", "text": "When the claim relies on a picture, seek its original context and another source addressing the same event. Inspect available credentials as history, and treat visual oddities as clues rather than a verdict. Save a sentence stating what the evidence supports, what remains open and where you could check next. This applies SIFT and the provenance distinction; it is a practice exercise, not a timed verification rule.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "provenance", "ai-images" ] } ] }, { "id": "match-checking-to-consequences", "role": "cautions", "title": "Use a check that fits the consequences", "items": [ { "label": "Keep consequential decisions with qualified support", "text": "This is a reading companion, not a professional assessment of a particular claim. Use it to organize questions, not to diagnose a condition, make a financial commitment or settle a legal dispute. The amount of checking should fit the consequence of being mistaken. For consequential decisions, take the specific claim and supporting material to a suitably qualified person. Keep private information out of public searches and requests for help. Missing links do not, by themselves, make someone’s reported experience false.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Use named evidence within its proper scope", "text": "Named sources. Honest paraphrase of the finding. Not medical, legal, or financial advice. Most studies here concern selected news, students or online research participants, rather than every kind of knowledge encountered in everyday life. A research result, a professional method and an original worked example contribute differently. Use the source notes to see which is which. You can leave a claim unverified, accept a narrower supported conclusion or take a more consequential question to a relevant professional without pretending the whole subject is settled.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "lateral", "adult-methods" ] } ] } ], "related": [ "learning", "attention", "career" ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "sift", "title": "SIFT (The Four Moves)", "url": "https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Author's four moves: stop, investigate source, find better coverage, trace original context; stopping also restores purpose.", "limitations": "Professional method, not a fixed-time guarantee or independently tested note-taking program. The method, rather than reader comments, supports this explanation." }, { "id": "lateral", "title": "Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course", "url": "https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Four instructional modules; 87 completing students; strategy use and assessment performance improved, but some lateral readers still made incorrect judgments.", "limitations": "Counterbalanced pre/post college study without an untreated randomized control; no durable universal adult transfer is established." }, { "id": "familiarity", "title": "Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Two experiments reported repetition-related perceived truth even when relevant knowledge was available.", "limitations": "Based on the indexed primary abstract, not the complete paper. No sample size, effect magnitude or individual prediction is asserted." }, { "id": "accuracy", "title": "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation", "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30073-5", "kind": "review", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Pennycook and Rand internal meta-analysis of 20 US experiments: better sharing discernment, primarily lower intention to share false headlines.", "limitations": "Primary article, including results and discussion. Internal research program measuring intentions and experimental-session outcomes, not permanent behavior or verification of a particular post." }, { "id": "ad-recognition", "title": "Content Confusion in an Era of Fake News", "url": "https://www.bu.edu/articles/2018/content-confusion-in-an-era-of-fake-news/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Amazeen's authored account of native-advertising experiments: more explicit and prominent disclosures improved recognition.", "limitations": "2018 public research explanation, not a fresh estimate of advertising prevalence, current platform practice, or a benefit-efficacy study." }, { "id": "media-context", "title": "Media Literacy Concepts and Definitions", "url": "https://mediaeducationlab.com/media-literacy-concepts-and-definitions", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Hobbs's framework: selected representations, authenticity as apparent realism, accuracy as factual verification, and context.", "limitations": "Public excerpts from a 2021 book; conceptual education, not experimental proof or visual AI detection." }, { "id": "constructive", "title": "Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media", "url": "https://d-nb.info/1346902364/34", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Altay, De Angelis and Hoes US preregistered experiment recruited 3,919: skepticism, trust and mixed tips improved immediate accuracy/sharing discernment; effects more alike than different.", "limitations": "Primary paper measuring ratings and stated willingness to share, not permanent benefit or universal prevalence." }, { "id": "adult-methods", "title": "Boosting Media Literacy Using Lateral Reading and Online Search Interventions", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976261453813", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Oswald and colleagues randomized 2,666 German adults. Small immediate estimates; some uncertain. At roughly two weeks, all groups improved and treatment-control differences were not distinguishable; no search backfire found here.", "limitations": "Primary article, first published online July 6 and in an August 2026 issue. Controls also received debriefing; results do not prove forgetting, a universal winner, subgroup effects or equivalence." }, { "id": "search-quality", "title": "Online search results can increase belief in misinformation", "url": "https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-023-03665-4/d41586-023-03665-4.pdf", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Sanderson and Aslett author briefing of five experiments; search encouragement increased belief in selected misinformation; effect concentrated among lower-quality search results.", "limitations": "Author briefing of DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y, not a full-paper review. Selected U.S. news from 2019–2021; the low-quality-result association does not isolate the mechanism, and algorithms change." }, { "id": "source-evaluation", "title": "How to evaluate sources", "url": "https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10822/", "kind": "official", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Campbell Brooks official Commons Library guidance on accuracy, relevant authority, currency, transparency, methods, funding and uncertainty.", "limitations": "Official guidance dated May 5, 2026. Evaluation checklist, not experimental validation; privacy and professional-help safeguards here are editorial boundaries." }, { "id": "disorder", "title": "Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Wardle and Derakhshan: creation, production and distribution can involve different actors and motives.", "limitations": "Conceptual framework from the 2017 report, pages 19–25. The authors’ views are not necessarily Council of Europe policy, and origin alone cannot establish motive." }, { "id": "fact-check", "title": "Fact-checking 101, Module 5 in Journalism, 'Fake News' & Disinformation", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0.pdf", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Alexios Mantzarlis: distinguish checkable assertions from opinions and assess proximity, expertise, rigor, transparency, reliability and interest.", "limitations": "Journalism education in the UNESCO handbook, pages 89–92, not an automatic verdict or a clinical, legal or financial service." }, { "id": "correction", "title": "The Debunking Handbook 2020", "url": "https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DebunkingHandbook2020.pdf", "kind": "review", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Lewandowsky and coauthors: misinformation may continue influencing reasoning; clear factual replacement and an accurate explanatory alternative can help correction.", "limitations": "Research synthesis and guidance, not a guarantee of persuasion. A replacement explanation must remain accurate rather than merely convenient." }, { "id": "prebunk", "title": "Debunking versus prebunking", "url": "https://inoculation.science/debunking-versus-prebunking/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Roozenbeek and van der Linden's first-party explanation of advance warning, weakened technique exposure and refutation.", "limitations": "Intervention developers’ public explanation. Immunity is a metaphor, not permanent protection or proof of comparative superiority." }, { "id": "predebunk-comparison", "title": "A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation", "url": "https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12551", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Tay and colleagues abstract reports experiment with 735 participants concerning fair-trade misinformation; both approaches generally reduced reliance.", "limitations": "Publisher abstract, not a full-methods review. No duration, effect-size, equivalence or universal-winner claim. First online December 2021; 2022 issue." }, { "id": "provenance", "title": "C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer, version 2.2", "url": "https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/explainer/Explainer.html", "kind": "official", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Sections 7.2.1–7.2.3: provenance may be incomplete, metadata can be removed, and history alone does not determine factual truth.", "limitations": "Official explainer pinned to version 2.2; it is not presented as the latest version, a universally available feature or a truth/AI detector." }, { "id": "ai-images", "title": "Specific media literacy tips improve AI-generated visual misinformation discernment", "url": "https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s41235-025-00648-z.pdf", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Guo, Swire-Thompson and Hu 2025 primary PDF: 1,012 analyzed US adults rated 20 true-real and 20 false-AI headline/photo pairs; specific tips improved discernment, while both tip types reduced belief in real headlines.", "limitations": "Combined headline-image test with immediate outcomes and no source or engagement cues; mixed-model analyses were not preregistered. It cannot isolate image-authenticity skill or predict detection of current generators." }, { "id": "reader-question", "title": "IWTL how to do personal research without getting overwhelmed", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/IWantToLearn/comments/1v3lptd/iwtl_how_to_do_personal_research_without_getting/", "kind": "question_signal", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "An individual adult’s question about ordinary research, phone use, credibility, scope and knowing when to stop.", "limitations": "Qualitative relevance only; relative posting date, no representative demand or factual authority. Comment advice not adopted as evidence." } ], "professional_panel": [ { "name": "Sam Wineburg", "credential": "Stanford Margaret Jacks Professor of Education, Emeritus; Digital Inquiry Group cofounder and Chief Innovation Officer", "official_url": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people", "public_usefulness": "Public source-evaluation curriculum and coauthored Verified; official biography lists public coverage.", "contribution": "Coauthored lateral-reading course research; helps make evaluator reasoning visible.", "boundary": "College instructional study cannot establish every adult's enduring skill; curriculum developer perspective.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Joel Breakstone", "credential": "Digital Inquiry Group cofounder and Executive Director; Stanford education PhD", "official_url": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people", "public_usefulness": "Leads freely distributed curriculum and assessments; official biography records education and public research coverage.", "contribution": "Lead author of the 87-student lateral-reading study; separates strategy adoption from correct evaluation.", "boundary": "Pre/post course evidence without randomized untreated control.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Mike Caulfield", "credential": "Web-literacy educator, SIFT developer and Verified coauthor; official author biography lists University of Washington Bothell technology role", "official_url": "https://hapgood.us/about/", "public_usefulness": "Public SIFT text, courseware, talks and social links are accessible.", "contribution": "Offers purpose, source investigation, better coverage and original-context moves.", "boundary": "Method developer and consultant; author's claims of wide adoption are not effectiveness evidence.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Lisa Fazio", "credential": "Vanderbilt Associate Professor of Psychology and Human Development", "official_url": "https://news.vanderbilt.edu/experts/expertprofile/?expert_username=lisa.fazio2", "public_usefulness": "Official expert page lists interviews, teaching videos and explanations of belief and repetition.", "contribution": "Coauthored knowledge/illusory-truth experiments; explains how familiarity can influence judgment.", "boundary": "Abstract-only verification of 2015 paper; no estimate of a reader's susceptibility.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Gordon Pennycook", "credential": "Cornell Associate Professor of Psychology and Dorothy and Ariz Mehta Faculty Leadership Fellow", "official_url": "https://psychology.cornell.edu/gordon-pennycook", "public_usefulness": "Official page lists public misinformation interviews and classes; coauthored accessible accuracy-prompt research.", "contribution": "Internal meta-analysis connects attention to accuracy with sharing discernment.", "boundary": "Sharing intentions are not guaranteed true beliefs or lasting platform behavior.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "David Rand", "credential": "Cornell Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Management; professor of information science", "official_url": "https://business.cornell.edu/profiles/dgr7/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography describes publicly discussed research on inaccurate beliefs, sharing and cooperation.", "contribution": "Coauthored accuracy-prompt synthesis; distinguishes sharing intention from factual accuracy.", "boundary": "Same internal research program as Pennycook, not an independent replication; institutional or industry relationships should be assessed for a specific claim, not treated as automatic proof or disproof.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Sander van der Linden", "credential": "Cambridge Professor of Social Psychology in Society and Director of Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab", "official_url": "https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/sander-van-der-linden/", "public_usefulness": "Public Foolproof book and first-party inoculation explanations.", "contribution": "Coauthored prebunking explanation of warning, technique example and response.", "boundary": "Developer/public-book perspective; inoculation metaphor does not promise permanent protection.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Stephan Lewandowsky", "credential": "University of Bristol Chair in Cognitive Psychology", "official_url": "https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Stephan-Lewandowsky-ebfa6836-6895-4acf-b57b-b2acdf30ec99/", "public_usefulness": "Freely available Debunking Handbook provides practical public correction guidance.", "contribution": "Coauthored synthesis on continued influence and accurate replacement accounts.", "boundary": "Synthesis is not a guarantee of persuasion or a license to invent an explanation.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Briony Swire-Thompson", "credential": "Northeastern Assistant Professor of Psychology; director of Psychology of Misinformation Lab", "official_url": "https://cos.northeastern.edu/people/briony-swire-thompson/", "public_usefulness": "Official lab profile explains belief change and designing corrections; public handbook coauthor.", "contribution": "Coauthored Guo visual-misinformation experiment and Debunking Handbook.", "boundary": "Headline-plus-image test does not isolate image authenticity; not clinical advice.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Emily Vraga", "credential": "University of Minnesota full professor; Don and Carole Larson Professor in Health Communication", "official_url": "https://hubbardschool.umn.edu/ekvraga", "public_usefulness": "Official public profile explains social-media correction and news-literacy research; public handbook coauthor.", "contribution": "Connects correction to the information people consume and share.", "boundary": "Issue and platform context matter; no universal message-placement recipe inferred.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Michelle Amazeen", "credential": "Boston University Associate Dean of Research and Associate Professor of Mass Communication; Communication Research Center director", "official_url": "https://www.bu.edu/com/profile/michelle-amazeen/", "public_usefulness": "Authored accessible BU account of native-advertising disclosure experiments.", "contribution": "Distinguishes recognizing sponsored format from evaluating the advertised assertion.", "boundary": "Historical experiment does not establish current platform recognition rates or product benefit.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Claire Wardle", "credential": "Cornell Associate Professor in Department of Communication; communication PhD", "official_url": "https://cals.cornell.edu/people/claire-wardle", "public_usefulness": "Official profile records cross-sector verification education and international news/public institutions; public report coauthor.", "contribution": "Creation/production/distribution framework separates a forwarded message from its origin.", "boundary": "Conceptual framework cannot establish a particular sharer's motives or claim truth.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Peter Adams", "credential": "News Literacy Project Senior Vice President of Research and Design", "official_url": "https://newslit.org/team/", "public_usefulness": "Official team listing and indexed 2019 The Sift credit establish public educator contribution.", "contribution": "Screenshot/original-record comparison lesson informs the practical extract comparison preserved here.", "boundary": "The historical lesson is represented by an official indexed excerpt rather than a full-page review. It supplies a teaching example, not evidence of adult intervention efficacy.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Alexios Mantzarlis", "credential": "Cornell Tech Director of Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative; former founding IFCN director", "official_url": "https://tech.cornell.edu/people/alexios-mantzarlis/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography records fact-checking education and code-of-principles work; authored UNESCO teaching module.", "contribution": "Precisely identify a factual assertion and evaluate evidence's proximity, method and interest.", "boundary": "Professional method is not infallible; prior Google role and institutional work provide context.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Renee Hobbs", "credential": "University of Rhode Island Professor of Communication Studies; Media Education Lab founder and director", "official_url": "https://web.uri.edu/harrington/meet/renee-hobbs/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography records research, public education and community service; public media-literacy definitions.", "contribution": "Explains selected representations and the difference between apparent realism and verified facts.", "boundary": "Conceptual framework is not an efficacy trial or an AI-image detector.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" } ] } }