How to Evaluate Online Information in 2025: A Practical, Repeatable Method

Outline

In this guide you’ll learn: a) why source evaluation matters in 2025, b) two complementary frameworks (CRAAP and SIFT), c) how to apply lateral reading in minutes, d) quick checks for photos and video, e) how to preserve pages for accountability, f) a 10‑minute verification workflow you can reuse, g) a short list of tools, and h) answers to frequent questions.

Why evaluating sources matters in 2025

Americans’ trust in information sources has shifted over the past year. Pew Research Center reported in March 2025 (surveyed March 10–16, 2025) that many adults who generally distrust national news still express trust in select outlets; meanwhile, local news continues to command relatively higher confidence. [1] Related Pew data from May 2025 shows increases in trust among Republicans toward information from national and local news, and even social media, compared with 2024. [2] These dynamics don’t settle the question of credibility; they make personal verification habits more important, especially when a claim could influence your health, finances, or vote. ([pewresearch.org](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/02/many-americans-who-generally-distrust-national-news-organizations-still-express-trust-in-certain-outlets/?utm_source=openai))

Two complementary frameworks: CRAAP and SIFT

Libraries have long taught the CRAAP test—Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose—to help students inspect a source’s surface signals (author, date, purpose). [5] Paired with general evaluation checklists from university guides, it remains useful for slow, in‑depth reading. [3] [4] But checklists alone can be too static for today’s fast‑moving, networked web.

That’s where SIFT—Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims/media to the original—comes in. It emphasizes leaving the page to see what the wider web says about a source or claim before you invest attention. [6] In practice, CRAAP helps you judge a source you’ve decided to use; SIFT helps you decide quickly whether a source deserves your time in the first place. ([owl.purdue.edu](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/evaluating_sources_of_information/evaluating_digital_sources.html?utm_source=openai))

How to use lateral reading in minutes

Lateral reading means opening new tabs to research the source itself—who’s behind it, their track record, and what others say—before you read closely. Studies associated with the Stanford History Education Group found that professional fact‑checkers who read laterally were faster and more accurate than subject‑matter experts who stayed on the original page. [7] To try it now:

– Stop: If a post triggers a strong emotional reaction, pause. Note your purpose (Are you about to share? Cite? Spend money?).
– Investigate the source: Search the site or organization name plus “about,” “funding,” or “controversy.” Look for independent write‑ups (Wikipedia entries can be helpful as a starting point).
– Find better coverage: Look for a reported piece on the same claim from a standards‑based outlet or a relevant expert publication.
– Trace to the original: Click through to the full study, dataset, transcript, or image origin and verify context (dates, locations, methodology). [20] ([libguides.milton.edu](https://libguides.milton.edu/lateralreading?utm_source=openai))

Fast checks for visuals: photos and video

Visuals are persuasive—and easy to mislabel. Start with built‑in context tools: Google’s “About this image” shows when an image (or similar) was first seen by Search, how other sites describe it, and available metadata. [9] [10] If you need broader coverage, reverse‑search with a dedicated engine to see where else the image appears. [14] For video frames and social posts, a verification plug‑in bundles quick tools (thumbnail expansion, keyframe extraction, reverse search, metadata). [15] ([blog.google](https://blog.google/products/search/google-search-fact-checking-resources/?utm_source=openai))

Keep an eye on Content Credentials (the C2PA standard), which attach tamper‑evident provenance to media. Platforms have begun to surface these signals—Google Search has previewed integrations, and YouTube has piloted an “authentic camera capture” label—though adoption is uneven and credentials don’t prove that a claim is accurate. [11] [12] [13] Use provenance as one signal alongside reporting, expert consensus, and context. ([theverge.com](https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/17/24247004/google-c2pa-verify-ai-generated-images-content?utm_source=openai))

Preserve what you find (for yourself and others)

Important pages change or disappear. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine lets you save a page instantly (“Save Page Now”) and retrieve prior versions. [16] [17] Google has also begun adding Wayback links inside its “More about this page” panel, making it easier to check a page’s history. [18] Archiving not only supports your notes; it also adds transparency when you cite or share. ([help.archive.org](https://help.archive.org/help/using-the-wayback-machine/?utm_source=openai))

A 10‑minute verification workflow you can reuse

Use this when a claim could affect a decision.

Minute 0–1: Stop and scope. What’s the claim? What decision might it influence? Do you need a quick confidence check or a deep dive?

Minute 1–3: Investigate the source. Search the site/author/org. Look for standards pages (ethics, corrections), funding, and expertise. A university or library evaluation page can guide what to look for. [3] [19]

Minute 3–6: Find better coverage. Check whether a standards‑based outlet or authoritative organization has covered or contextualized the claim. If the post cites a study, search for the original paper; skim abstract, methods, sample, and limitations.

Minute 6–8: Trace visuals and quotes. Use “About this image,” reverse image search, or a verification plug‑in to look for earlier appearances, original uploaders, and context. [9] [14] [15]

Minute 8–9: Archive. Save key pages for your records (and future readers). [17]

Minute 9–10: Decide and document. Record your quick notes: why you consider the source credible (or not), what’s still uncertain, and what you’ll do next (share, withhold, or seek expert input).

Tools and resources (non‑exhaustive)

– Image context and fact checks in Search: About this image and Fact Check Explorer. [9]
– Reverse image search engine: TinEye (also has browser add‑ons). [14]
– Verification plug‑in for images/video: InVID & WeVerify (Chrome). [15]
– Media provenance: C2PA Content Credentials explainer. [12]
– University evaluation guides: Stanford Libraries, Purdue OWL. [3] [4]
– Save evidence for later: Internet Archive Wayback Machine. [16]
– SIFT overview for quick triage: EKU SIFT guide. [20]

Where frameworks fit in your day‑to‑day

– When you see a viral screenshot or a startling statistic on social media, start with SIFT moves to decide whether to keep reading or sharing. [6]
– When you’re writing a report or paper, apply CRAAP to the sources you’ve already shortlisted to document their relevance, authority, and limitations. [5]
– For visuals, combine platform context (About this image) with reverse search and, when available, provenance signals (C2PA). [9] [12] ([hapgood.us](https://hapgood.us/2019/05/12/sift-and-a-check-please-preview/?utm_source=openai))

Common pitfalls to avoid

– Over‑weighting a domain suffix (.org/.com) as a trust signal. Many credible organizations use .com; many .org sites advocate strongly for a position. Always check the organization’s about page and independent coverage. [4]
– Treating a single study as a final word. Look for replication, meta‑analyses, or reviews; check methods and sample size.
– Relying on screenshots without context. Trace back to the original post, publication, or dataset, and capture an archived copy for reference. [17]

FAQ

Websources

1. [1] Pew Research Center – Many Americans who generally distrust national news still trust certain outlets. Link
2. [2] Pew Research Center – Republicans’ trust in information from news outlets and social media has risen since 2024. Link
3. [3] Stanford Libraries – How to evaluate sources. Link
4. [4] Purdue OWL – Evaluating Digital Sources. Link
5. [5] CSU Chico (Meriam Library) – CRAAP Test handout. Link
6. [6] Mike Caulfield – Introducing SIFT (Four Moves). Link
7. [7] Milton Academy – Lateral Reading overview and references. Link
8. [8] UMass Amherst – SIFT: Moves for Web Evaluation. Link
9. [9] Google – Four ways to use Search to check facts, images and sources. Link
10. [10] WIRED – Google’s “About this image” context for fighting visual misinformation. Link
11. [11] The Verge – Google plans C2PA‑based provenance signals in Search. Link
12. [12] C2PA – Content Credentials explainer (v2.2). Link
13. [13] The Verge – YouTube’s “captured with a camera” authenticity label. Link
14. [14] TinEye – Reverse image search tutorial. Link
15. [15] InVID & WeVerify – Verification extension (Chrome Web Store). Link
16. [16] Internet Archive – Using the Wayback Machine. Link
17. [17] Internet Archive – Save Pages in the Wayback Machine. Link
18. [18] The Verge – Google adds Wayback links to Search. Link
19. [19] Purdue OWL – Evaluating Print vs. Internet Sources. Link
20. [20] Eastern Kentucky University Libraries – SIFT (The Four Moves). Link