Tier 4

source_credibility

Procedure for evaluating the credibility and reliability of any information source

Usage in Claude Code: /source_credibility your question here

Source Credibility Assessment

Overview

Procedure for evaluating the credibility and reliability of any information source

Steps

Step 1: Identify source type

Classify the source to determine appropriate evaluation criteria:

Source types:

  • Academic paper: Peer-reviewed journal article, conference paper
  • News article: Journalism from news organizations
  • Website/blog: General web content, organizational sites
  • Social media: Posts, threads, viral content
  • Expert opinion: Statements from subject matter experts
  • Government/official: Government publications, official statistics
  • Book: Published books (academic or popular)
  • Report: Think tank, NGO, or industry reports

Note: Some sources span multiple types (e.g., academic blog)

Step 2: Conduct lateral reading

Research the source itself rather than just reading its claims:

  1. Open new browser tabs/searches
  2. Search for the author/organization name
  3. Look for:
    • Who they are (credentials, affiliation)
    • What others say about them
    • Any known biases or controversies
    • Track record of accuracy
    • Funding sources or financial interests
  4. Check independent assessments:
    • For news: Media Bias/Fact Check, AllSides, NewsGuard
    • For academics: Institution reputation, h-index
    • For websites: WHOIS, domain age, traffic data

Key question: What do OTHER sources say about THIS source?

Step 3: Evaluate on five dimensions

Score the source on each dimension (1-10):

AUTHORITY (weight: 0.25)

  • Who is the author/creator?
  • What are their credentials?
  • Are they recognized experts in this area?
  • What institution are they affiliated with? Red flags: Anonymous, no credentials, credentials in unrelated field

ACCURACY (weight: 0.25)

  • Are claims supported by evidence?
  • Are sources cited?
  • Can claims be verified elsewhere?
  • Is methodology sound (if research)? Red flags: No citations, contradicts established facts, cherry-picked data

OBJECTIVITY (weight: 0.20)

  • Is the purpose informational or persuasive?
  • Are multiple perspectives presented?
  • Is language neutral or loaded?
  • Are conflicts of interest disclosed? Red flags: Emotional language, one-sided, undisclosed conflicts

CURRENCY (weight: 0.15)

  • When was this published?
  • Has information been updated?
  • Is this topic time-sensitive? Red flags: Outdated in fast-moving field, cites superseded research

COVERAGE (weight: 0.15)

  • How comprehensively is topic covered?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Are counterarguments addressed? Red flags: Overgeneralizes, ignores contradicting evidence

Step 4: Apply source-type specific checks

Apply additional criteria based on source type:

For ACADEMIC PAPERS:

  • Peer-reviewed journal? Impact factor?
  • Citation count? Highly cited or ignored?
  • Methodology appropriate? Sample size adequate?
  • Any retractions or corrections?
  • Has it been replicated?

For NEWS ARTICLES:

  • Reputable news organization with editorial standards?
  • Bylined article with named journalist?
  • Multiple sources quoted?
  • Primary sources available?
  • Separates news from opinion?

For WEBSITES:

  • Who owns/operates the site? (check About page)
  • Contact information available?
  • Domain type (.gov, .edu, .org, .com)?
  • Domain age and history? (WHOIS, Wayback Machine)

For SOCIAL MEDIA:

  • Verified account?
  • Account age and history?
  • Does person exist offline?
  • Is this firsthand or hearsay?
  • Does original source exist?

For EXPERT OPINION:

  • Expert in relevant field?
  • Speaking within their expertise?
  • Consensus or outlier view?
  • Financial interests in position?

Step 5: Verify key claims

Verify the most important claims using multiple techniques:

LATERAL READING:

  • Leave the source, search for info ABOUT it
  • What do independent sources say?

UPSTREAM VERIFICATION:

  • Find the original source of claims
  • Verify claim matches original context
  • Check for context removed or distorted

CROSS-REFERENCE:

  • Find 2-3 other sources for same claim
  • Ensure they’re truly independent (not circular)
  • Compare details and note discrepancies

REVERSE IMAGE SEARCH (if images):

  • Verify images are from when/where claimed
  • Check for manipulation
  • Find original context

Document verification status for each key claim:

  • Verified: Confirmed by independent sources
  • Partially verified: Some aspects confirmed
  • Unverified: Cannot confirm or deny
  • Contradicted: Independent sources disagree

Step 6: Calculate credibility score

Compute weighted credibility score:

Formula: Score = (Authority × 0.25) + (Accuracy × 0.25) + (Objectivity × 0.20) + (Currency × 0.15) + (Coverage × 0.15)

Interpretation:

  • 8-10: High credibility - suitable as primary source
  • 6-8: Moderate credibility - use with verification
  • 4-6: Low credibility - use cautiously, verify all claims
  • 1-4: Very low credibility - do not rely on

Adjust interpretation based on:

  • Severity of red flags
  • Verification results
  • Source-type specific concerns
  • Context of intended use

Step 7: Document assessment and recommend use

Create final assessment record:

  1. Source identification

    • Full citation/URL
    • Source type
    • Date assessed

  2. Scores summary

    • Overall credibility score
    • Individual dimension scores
    • Red flags identified

  3. Verification summary

    • Claims checked
    • Verification status
    • Concerns noted

  4. Recommended use

    • Suitable as primary source? Citation?
    • What caveats should accompany use?
    • What additional verification needed?
    • Should this source be avoided?

  5. Context notes

    • How this assessment might change with context
    • What would increase/decrease credibility

When to Use

  • Evaluating a claim or piece of information before acting on it
  • Assessing reliability of a source for research or citation
  • Fact-checking statements or statistics
  • Building an evidence base for decision-making
  • Encountering unfamiliar sources or outlets
  • Verifying viral or widely-shared content
  • Assessing expert opinions or recommendations
  • Evaluating information in high-stakes contexts

Verification

  • Lateral reading conducted (searched for info ABOUT source)
  • All five dimensions scored with documented rationale
  • Source-type specific checks completed
  • Key claims verification attempted
  • Red flags explicitly documented
  • Final score calculated correctly
  • Recommended use is clear and justified

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Apply this procedure to the input provided.