Problem-solving · 30 min first practice
Investigate an online claim
Trace a specific claim to its original context, investigate the publisher and distinguish independent support from repeated copies.
WHAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO
Investigate one ordinary factual online claim and produce a short evidence record showing what is supported, misleading or still unknown.
A polished page and several matching headlines are not enough to verify a claim. State exactly what is being asserted, leave the page to investigate its source and trace the evidence back to its context. Your final answer should say what the evidence establishes and what you could not confirm.
You will need
- A browser with several tabs and a search engine
- One low-stakes claim with a link or screenshot, such as opening hours, an event date or a quoted announcement
- A note for the exact claim, URLs, dates and supported conclusion
THE METHOD
Step by step
Freeze the claim before reacting
Write one testable sentence including who, what, place and time. 'All city libraries now close at 6 pm' is more checkable than 'the city is cutting everything.' Record the original URL or screenshot date. Separate the factual assertion from a prediction or opinion. Decide what you need to know before sharing or using it, so the search stays bounded.
Investigate who is behind the page
Open another tab and search the publisher or account name using outside sources. Look for its actual role, expertise and interests; do not rely solely on its own About page. A neighborhood reposting account may be useful for discovering an announcement but have no direct knowledge of its accuracy. Reputation helps allocate attention; it does not automatically settle a specific claim.
Search for better coverage of the same assertion
Use distinctive terms, the named organization and any date. Read several result descriptions before opening the first attractive link. Add official site names or a relevant domain when useful. Search neutral terms as well as your initial phrasing. A search written only to prove the claim wrong can miss evidence that supports a narrower true version.
Trace the evidence to its original context
Follow the source link to the actual announcement, document, full quotation or dataset. Check the date, location, scope and whether the content has been updated. Read before and after a quoted sentence. For a screenshot, search a distinctive phrase to find the original page; matching pixels do not establish that the caption describes the right year or place.
Check whether sources are independent
See where each article gets its information. Three stories that all copy one press release provide repetition of one underlying source. For a schedule, the current organization page is directly relevant; an independent report may explain the change but still rely on that schedule. Count distinct evidence, not tabs. If reports conflict, identify whether they refer to different dates or populations before choosing one.
Match the conclusion to the evidence
Compare the original sentence with what you found. Separate supported, contradicted, partly supported or unverified details. A current page for one branch cannot establish the hours of every branch. If the official information itself conflicts, record the discrepancy and ask the organization for confirmation through its published channel rather than declaring certainty.
Keep a short reproducible record
Write the claim, the strongest supporting or correcting URLs, the date checked and one sentence on the remaining limit. If you share a correction, link the source and describe the specific change without repeating an inflammatory unsupported framing. Stop when the evidence answers your ordinary question or when additional searching is unlikely to resolve a clearly stated uncertainty.
SEE IT IN PRACTICE
An old schedule appears to be a new citywide rule
In this fictional example, a reposted screenshot says 'Libraries close at 6 pm starting Monday.' You record the claim as applying to every city branch now. Searching the distinctive wording finds a 2024 notice for a single branch during refurbishment. The screenshot omitted its heading and year. You then locate the city's current branch-hours page, where that branch closes at 6 on two weekdays and 8 on another; other branches have different hours. Two local articles repeating the original notice are dated 2024 and both credit the same announcement, so they are not separate current confirmation. You check the specific branch you plan to visit and find a current 8 pm listing for Thursday. Your conclusion is that the screenshot does not support a new citywide 6 pm rule. You keep the branch page and checking date. If a banner elsewhere on the official site listed a temporary closure for Thursday, you would record the conflict and confirm with the library before traveling. The method resolves the exact practical question without claiming that every other repost from that account is false.
Illustrative exampleIf it does not go to plan
- A professional design substitutes for evidence
- Investigate the source outside its own page and inspect the actual basis of the claim. Layout is not a verification method.
- Five copies are called five confirmations
- Trace their citations. Repeated wording or a shared press release can reveal one evidence chain.
- An AI summary or search snippet becomes the final source
- Use it as a lead, then open the actual evidence. Summaries can omit date, scope and qualifications.
- Not found is reported as disproved
- State what you searched and could not verify. Lack of accessible evidence differs from evidence that contradicts the claim.
BUILD THE SKILL
A little more capable each time
- First attempt
Check a low-stakes schedule or event claim. Record exactly which time and place the original source supports.
- Use it for real
Investigate a quotation or screenshot by finding the fuller context. Explain whether the omitted material changes its meaning.
- Take it further
Choose a claim covered by several sites. Draw the evidence chain and separate independent information from copies, then ask a partner to reproduce your conclusion from the saved links.
CHECK YOUR LEARNING
Can you do it?
Judge the result against these signs. If one is missing, return to the relevant step and try again.
- The claim has a specific scope and time reference.
- At least one key piece of evidence is inspected in its original context.
- Repeated coverage is distinguished from independent confirmation.
- The conclusion and checking date are reproducible, with uncertainty stated explicitly.
Explain it to yourself
Try answering before opening the explanation.
Why leave a website before reading every page on it?
The site controls its own presentation. Outside information can quickly establish who is behind it and whether other sources describe its expertise or interests differently.
A trusted organization published the notice. What else must you check?
Its date and exact scope. An authentic old notice for one location can be misused to support a false current claim about many locations.
Three news articles agree. Is the claim independently verified three times?
Only if they rely on distinct relevant evidence. If each copies the same announcement, you have one underlying evidence chain with several retellings.
References for this guide
Mike Caulfield: SIFT, the four moves (opens in a new tab)↗The original method supports stopping, investigating the source, finding better coverage and tracing original context. The library scenario and evidence record are original applications.
Digital Inquiry Group: Civic Online Reasoning (opens in a new tab)↗The public curriculum overview identifies lateral reading, evidence evaluation and click restraint as teachable skills. No claim is made to have accessed account-only lesson materials.
Community question: where to begin checking a claim (opens in a new tab)↗The poster asks where to begin and replies disagree about journals, summaries and AI tools. This establishes a practical information-navigation concern, not scientific consensus or validation of the replies.