Incredibly valuable contribution towards information literacy. A few additional thoughts.
Before We Start Reading, Item 2. Check the URL before clicking. Look for the last dot before the first forward slash to identify the actual domain. Malicious sites will often put a legitimate domain after the first forward slash. Example [......xxxx.com/irs.gov/....]. The actual domain is xxxx.com not irs.gov. Also check the link very carefully. Malicious sites will also use links that look much like a legitimate site link but have subtle misspellings. [Example: ....AMAZ0N.com has the letter "O" replaced by the number "0"]. If at all uncertain about a link, you can right click a link and select "Copy link address". Then copy that link into a Google search box and add the word review to get a review of the link before clicking on it.
Although .org domains may be owned by a nonprofit, anyone can purchase a .org domain and not all nonprofits have charitable purposes. [Example: americansforprosperity.org is a nonprofit political advocacy group that pushes for tax cuts, business deregulation and the reduction of federal spending.]
On Social Media, Item 5. Read the replies. Replies are incredibly valuable for additional context as noted. Replies also may contain links (again be careful with links) that point you to other valuable sources of information about the post/article.
I will often submit an article or post (particularly long ones) to an AI and ask the AI to:
"Provide a rigorous analysis and assessment of the arguments and claims made in this article. Identify all unstated assumptions that are relied on by the article. Identify all errors of logic made in the article. Provide an assessment of the credibility of this article."
I did that to this post (Gemini AI Plus) and got an overall assessment of high credibility. It also identified some assumptions:
1) Readers have the desire, time, etc. to employ the habits noted. Probably true for subscribers of this substack but not necessarily true of all readers.
2) Readers are rational and want objective truth over confirmation bias. Ditto.
3) Readers have a high baseline level of digital literacy. Ditto.
4) Integrity of traditional proxies. Sites and organizations can change over time. Example is the Washington Post pre/post Bezos. Reporting is still generally good but opinion pages are very biased towards viewpoints favored by Bezos.
As with anything AI, it's just one tool among many. AI can be useful but most important is your own mind.
Please don't feed posts into AI! I don't know if OP is okay with that but I think I am not the only who would be mad. Plus, identifying these things by yourself is good mental gymnastics.
If somebody claims to be a scientist or scholar, see if you can find their peer-reviewed publications: is the post or article you are reading on a subject related to the field in which they have peer-reviewed publications? I post a lot about biomedical research, which is my field of expertise; I also post some stuff on other subjects. What I have to say about biomedical research should be given more weight than what I have to say about other subjects.
It’s common for using unreliable sources when learning something to diminish the value of both the knowledge itself and the time and effort invested in acquiring it. Unfortunately, such learners are almost always beginners who have just started taking an interest in the subject.
This is because the less experienced a beginner is with a topic—and thus the fewer prior knowledge they have—the less "immune" they are to misinformation about that topic. That’s why it’s especially important to ask trusted experts for guidance during the early stages of learning.
This article will serve as a guide for such beginners to find the right information when they want to study on their own.
As a war journalist, these are great. I will add, for the masses, if you want a good-one-source for a lot of news stories which tell you whose paying for it and what the slant is, I would recommend downloading “Ground News.” I’m serious, it was developed by a NASA engineer and it collects news from all of the world and gives you a bias grade, and lets you see how the info is being presented compared to others.
As an old-time blogger I don't even read blog posts if there's no way to comment or see the date of the post, because it could be hours or 10 years old! To me, to even call it a blog, these features need to be present, and if they're not it's just a homepage hosted on a blog platform.
As an artist, I also avoid liking or sharing big share accounts on instagram that shares someone else's 10-15 paintings in one carousel 🎠. - they haven't created anything or done any creative work but still get thousands of likes, while very few actually clicks over to the artist account to take a look or let them know how lovely their work is!? If, that is, the original artist is even tagged in the post (or asked for permission). Liking or engaging at all with posts like that to me, embraces the stealing.
Maybe this is not that related to your article, but I think it is also something to be aware of with news: who gather others photos/images and shares them again - and why?
I will add to checking those first two paragraphs for any story, not solely news articles.
If I'm reading something that is purported to be factual and the first two paragraphs are spent describing background for a mental state (to swallow what follows, apparently), I'm outta there!
I’ve been following all your writing on SubStack & have found it inspirational. Continue to fight the good fight for clear minds & even clearer consciences.
I’d like to pay monthly & sign up for your added benefits, but I’m an 82 year old, disabled retired Prof living on only my SS. Plus, I have 5 additional mouths (feline) to feed.
Great, practical advice! Thanks! I'm curious about what you think about Smart Brevity. I have adopted this approach for the past several years and have received generally positive feedback from my subscription base on Substack.
Incredibly valuable contribution towards information literacy. A few additional thoughts.
Before We Start Reading, Item 2. Check the URL before clicking. Look for the last dot before the first forward slash to identify the actual domain. Malicious sites will often put a legitimate domain after the first forward slash. Example [......xxxx.com/irs.gov/....]. The actual domain is xxxx.com not irs.gov. Also check the link very carefully. Malicious sites will also use links that look much like a legitimate site link but have subtle misspellings. [Example: ....AMAZ0N.com has the letter "O" replaced by the number "0"]. If at all uncertain about a link, you can right click a link and select "Copy link address". Then copy that link into a Google search box and add the word review to get a review of the link before clicking on it.
Although .org domains may be owned by a nonprofit, anyone can purchase a .org domain and not all nonprofits have charitable purposes. [Example: americansforprosperity.org is a nonprofit political advocacy group that pushes for tax cuts, business deregulation and the reduction of federal spending.]
On Social Media, Item 5. Read the replies. Replies are incredibly valuable for additional context as noted. Replies also may contain links (again be careful with links) that point you to other valuable sources of information about the post/article.
I will often submit an article or post (particularly long ones) to an AI and ask the AI to:
"Provide a rigorous analysis and assessment of the arguments and claims made in this article. Identify all unstated assumptions that are relied on by the article. Identify all errors of logic made in the article. Provide an assessment of the credibility of this article."
I did that to this post (Gemini AI Plus) and got an overall assessment of high credibility. It also identified some assumptions:
1) Readers have the desire, time, etc. to employ the habits noted. Probably true for subscribers of this substack but not necessarily true of all readers.
2) Readers are rational and want objective truth over confirmation bias. Ditto.
3) Readers have a high baseline level of digital literacy. Ditto.
4) Integrity of traditional proxies. Sites and organizations can change over time. Example is the Washington Post pre/post Bezos. Reporting is still generally good but opinion pages are very biased towards viewpoints favored by Bezos.
As with anything AI, it's just one tool among many. AI can be useful but most important is your own mind.
I'm glad you mentioned the .org vs .com thing: this misconception bugs me and it's still so prevalent among kids.
Please don't feed posts into AI! I don't know if OP is okay with that but I think I am not the only who would be mad. Plus, identifying these things by yourself is good mental gymnastics.
If somebody claims to be a scientist or scholar, see if you can find their peer-reviewed publications: is the post or article you are reading on a subject related to the field in which they have peer-reviewed publications? I post a lot about biomedical research, which is my field of expertise; I also post some stuff on other subjects. What I have to say about biomedical research should be given more weight than what I have to say about other subjects.
Thank you for the wonderful article.
It’s common for using unreliable sources when learning something to diminish the value of both the knowledge itself and the time and effort invested in acquiring it. Unfortunately, such learners are almost always beginners who have just started taking an interest in the subject.
This is because the less experienced a beginner is with a topic—and thus the fewer prior knowledge they have—the less "immune" they are to misinformation about that topic. That’s why it’s especially important to ask trusted experts for guidance during the early stages of learning.
This article will serve as a guide for such beginners to find the right information when they want to study on their own.
As a war journalist, these are great. I will add, for the masses, if you want a good-one-source for a lot of news stories which tell you whose paying for it and what the slant is, I would recommend downloading “Ground News.” I’m serious, it was developed by a NASA engineer and it collects news from all of the world and gives you a bias grade, and lets you see how the info is being presented compared to others.
Great advice, thank you.
As an old-time blogger I don't even read blog posts if there's no way to comment or see the date of the post, because it could be hours or 10 years old! To me, to even call it a blog, these features need to be present, and if they're not it's just a homepage hosted on a blog platform.
As an artist, I also avoid liking or sharing big share accounts on instagram that shares someone else's 10-15 paintings in one carousel 🎠. - they haven't created anything or done any creative work but still get thousands of likes, while very few actually clicks over to the artist account to take a look or let them know how lovely their work is!? If, that is, the original artist is even tagged in the post (or asked for permission). Liking or engaging at all with posts like that to me, embraces the stealing.
Maybe this is not that related to your article, but I think it is also something to be aware of with news: who gather others photos/images and shares them again - and why?
Cheers.
Excellent collection!
I will add to checking those first two paragraphs for any story, not solely news articles.
If I'm reading something that is purported to be factual and the first two paragraphs are spent describing background for a mental state (to swallow what follows, apparently), I'm outta there!
Most people fact-check information.
Very few fact-check their own incentives for believing it.
I’ve been following all your writing on SubStack & have found it inspirational. Continue to fight the good fight for clear minds & even clearer consciences.
I’d like to pay monthly & sign up for your added benefits, but I’m an 82 year old, disabled retired Prof living on only my SS. Plus, I have 5 additional mouths (feline) to feed.
Do you have any discounts for pensioners like me?
i wish i knew some parents w young kids or some teachers--this is an excellent list of action steps & would be a fabulous handout at an event
are you familiar with TeachersPayTeachers? i think this would be perfect for that venue
This is excellent! Incredibly valuable for everyone and to be incoporated into any media classes too.
Great, practical advice! Thanks! I'm curious about what you think about Smart Brevity. I have adopted this approach for the past several years and have received generally positive feedback from my subscription base on Substack.
Great thanks