Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Verifying facts in the age of AI – librarians offer 5 strategies

Woman looking at  a computer

The internet is awash in fake news articles and misinformation.

franz12/Getty Images

Bicknell-Holmes is a library professor at Boise State University. Watson is a librarian and associate professor at Boise State University. Cordova is a library associate professor at Boise State University

The phenomenal growth in artificial intelligence tools has made it easy to create a story quickly, complicating a reader’s ability to determine if a news source or article is truthful or reliable. For instance, earlier this year, people were sharing an article about the supposed suicide of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s psychiatrist as if it were real. It ended up being an AI-generated rewrite of a satirical piece from 2010.

The problem is widespread. According to a 2021 Pearson Institute/AP-NORC poll, “Ninety-five percent of Americans believe the spread of misinformation is a problem.” The Pearson Institute researches methods to reduce global conflicts.


As library scientists, we combat the increase in misinformation by teaching a number of ways to validate the accuracy of an article. These methods include the SIFT Method (Stop, Investigate, Find, Trace), the P.R.O.V.E.N. Source Evaluation method (Purpose, Relevance, Objectivity, Verifiability, Expertise and Newness), and lateral reading.

Lateral reading is a strategy for investigating a source by opening a new browser tab to conduct a search and consult other sources. Lateral reading involves cross-checking the information by researching the source rather than scrolling down the page.

Here are five techniques based on these methods to help readers determine news facts from fiction:

1. Research the author or organization

Search for information beyond the entity’s own website. What are others saying about it? Are there any red flags that lead you to question its credibility? Search the entity’s name in quotation marks in your browser and look for sources that critically review the organization or group. An organization’s “About” page might tell you who is on their board, their mission and their nonprofit status, but this information is typically written to present the organization in a positive light.

The P.R.O.V.E.N. Source Evaluation method includes a section called “Expertise,” which recommends that readers check the author’s credentials and affiliations. Do the authors have advanced degrees or expertise related to the topic? What else have they written? Who funds the organization and what are their affiliations? Do any of these affiliations reveal a potential conflict of interest? Might their writings be biased in favor of one particular viewpoint?

If any of this information is missing or questionable, you may want to stay away from this author or organization.

2. Use good search techniques

Become familiar with search techniques available in your favorite web browser, such as searching keywords rather than full sentences and limiting searches by domain names, such as .org, .gov, or .edu.

Another good technique is putting two or more words in quotation marks so the search engine finds the words next to each other in that order, such as “ Pizzagate conspiracy.” This leads to more relevant results.

In an article published in Nature, a team of researchers wrote that “77% of search queries that used the headline or URL of a false/misleading article as a search query return at least one unreliable news link among the top ten results.”

A more effective search would be to identify the key concepts in the headline in question and search those individual words as keywords. For example, if the headline is “Video Showing Alien at Miami Mall Sparks Claims of Invasion,” readers could search: “Alien invasion” Miami mall.

3. Verify the source

Verify the original sources of the information. Was the information cited, paraphrased or quoted accurately? Can you find the same facts or statements in the original source? Purdue Global, Purdue University’s online university for working adults, recommends verifying citations and references that can also apply to news stories by checking that the sources are “easy to find, easy to access, and not outdated.” It also recommends checking the original studies or data cited for accuracy.

The SIFT Method echoes this in its recommendation to “trace claims, quotes, and media to the original context.” You cannot assume that re-reporting is always accurate.

4. Use fact-checking websites

Search fact-checking websites such as InfluenceWatch.org, Poynter.org, Politifact.com or Snopes.com to verify claims. What conclusions did the fact-checkers reach about the accuracy of the claims?

A Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review article found that the “high level of agreement” between fact-checking sites “ enhances the credibility of fact checkers in the eyes of the public.”

5. Pause and reflect

Pause and reflect to see if what you have read has triggered a strong emotional response. An article in the journal Cognitive Research indicates that news items that cause strong emotions increase our tendency “to believe fake news stories.”

One online study found that the simple act of “pausing to think” and reflect on whether a headline is true or false may prevent a person from sharing false information. While the study indicated that pausing only decreases intentions to share by a small amount – 0.32 points on a 6-point scale – the authors argue that this could nonetheless cut down on the spread of fake news on social media.

Knowing how to identify and check for misinformation is an important part of being a responsible digital citizen. This skill is all the more important as AI becomes more prevalent. The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

Generative AI and surgical robotics are advancing toward autonomous surgery, raising new questions about safety, regulation, payment models, and trust.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Will Generative AI Robots Replace Surgeons?

In medicine’s history, the best technologies didn’t just improve clinical practice. They turned traditional medicine on its head.

For example, advances like CT, MRI, and ultrasound machines did more than merely improve diagnostic accuracy. They diminished the importance of the physical exam and the physicians who excelled at it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital Footprints Are Affecting This New Generation of Politicians, but Do Voters Care?

Hand holding smart phone with US flag case

Credit: Katareena Roska

Digital Footprints Are Affecting This New Generation of Politicians, but Do Voters Care?

WASHINGTON — In 2022, Jay Jones sent text messages to a former colleague about a senior state Republican in Virginia getting “two bullets to the head.”

When the texts were shared by his colleague a month before the Virginia general election, Jones, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, was slammed for the violent rhetoric. Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican candidate for governor, called for Jones to withdraw from the race.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S. flag flying before congress. Visual representation of technology, a glitch, artificial intelligence
As AI reshapes jobs and politics, America faces a choice: resist automation or embrace innovation. The path to prosperity lies in AI literacy and adaptability.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

America’s Unnamed Crisis

I first encountered Leszek Kołakowski, the Polish political thinker, as an undergraduate. It was he who warned of “an all-encompassing crisis” that societies can feel but cannot clearly name. His insight reads less like a relic of the late 1970s and more like a dispatch from our own political moment. We aren’t living through one breakdown, but a cascade of them—political, social, and technological—each amplifying the others. The result is a country where people feel burnt out, anxious, and increasingly unsure of where authority or stability can be found.

This crisis doesn’t have a single architect. Liberals can’t blame only Trump, and conservatives can’t pin everything on "wokeness." What we face is a convergence of powerful forces: decades of institutional drift, fractures in civic life, and technologies that reward emotions over understanding. These pressures compound one another, creating a sense of disorientation that older political labels fail to describe with the same accuracy as before.

Keep ReadingShow less