Chapter 20 Exercises: Source Evaluation and the SIFT Method

These exercises develop practical SIFT skills through hands-on engagement with source evaluation, lateral reading, claim tracing, and visual verification. The exercises are designed to be completed with internet access.

Part A: SIFT Fundamentals

Exercise 20.1 — Stop: Recognizing the Trigger Moment

For one week, keep a "trigger log" — a record of every online content encounter that provokes a strong emotional reaction (outrage, vindication, shock, amusement, disgust, or excitement). For each entry, record:

The content type (article, post, video, image, etc.) and platform.
The emotional reaction it triggered (describe specifically).
Whether you shared it before verifying, after verifying, or not at all.
Whether you attempted any verification and what you found.
Whether you wish you had stopped and verified before your initial reaction.

At the end of the week, write a 400-word reflection on patterns you noticed: What kinds of content triggered the strongest reactions? What emotional states were you in when you were least likely to pause and verify? What does this reveal about your own information vulnerabilities?

Exercise 20.2 — Vertical vs. Lateral Reading Comparison

For this exercise, you will evaluate the same unfamiliar website using both vertical reading and lateral reading, then compare the results.

Select an unfamiliar website that covers health or environmental claims. (Your instructor may provide specific URLs, or you may choose from a list of pre-screened websites that range from credible to low-credibility.)

Part A — Vertical Reading (5 minutes maximum): Read the website's About page, a sample article, and any other self-presented material. Answer: 1. Based on vertical reading, what credibility signals does the website present? 2. What is your credibility assessment after vertical reading? (1-10 scale) 3. What information did you use to form this assessment?

Part B — Lateral Reading (5 minutes maximum): Without reading the website further, search for the website or organization in a search engine and on Wikipedia. Answer: 1. What did external sources say about this website/organization? 2. Did external sources confirm or contradict the self-presentation you found through vertical reading? 3. What is your credibility assessment after lateral reading? (1-10 scale)

Part C — Comparison: 1. Did your assessment change between vertical and lateral reading? Why or why not? 2. Which approach yielded more useful credibility information per minute of evaluation effort? 3. What specific information would you have missed if you had only used one approach?

Exercise 20.3 — Wikipedia as Starting Point (Not Ending Point)

Select five news organizations, think tanks, or research institutions from the following list and evaluate each using Wikipedia as a lateral reading starting point:

(Suggested set: Breitbart News, The Atlantic, American Enterprise Institute, Media Matters for America, The Heritage Foundation, Reuters, The Intercept, Epoch Times, The Conversation, The Hill)

For each source, use Wikipedia to answer: 1. Who founded the organization and when? 2. Who funds it? What are the major funding sources? 3. What is its stated editorial or political orientation? 4. What controversies, if any, has it been involved in? 5. How is it characterized by other credible sources?

Then write a one-paragraph credibility assessment of each organization based on this research. Note: you should acknowledge what Wikipedia cannot tell you and what further research would be needed for a complete assessment.

Exercise 20.4 — WHOIS Investigation

Using a WHOIS lookup tool (try lookup.icann.org, whois.domaintools.com, or similar), investigate the following domains:

A major established news organization of your choice
A website from a list your instructor provides of low-credibility or recently-created sites
Two websites you encounter in your own browsing that seem unfamiliar

For each domain, record: - Registration date - Registrar - Registrant (if not privacy-protected) - Expiry date - Country of registration

Then answer: What does the registration information tell you about each website's credibility? What registration patterns would raise red flags? What limitations does WHOIS have as a credibility signal?

Exercise 20.5 — Wayback Machine Investigation

Use the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) to investigate the following:

Look up an unfamiliar news or information website and check its earliest available snapshot. How has the website changed over time? Does its earlier version look different from its current version in ways that affect credibility?
Check the earliest available snapshot of a major established news organization and compare it to the current version. What does this tell you about institutional continuity?
Your instructor will provide the URL of a website that changed its identity or content at some point. Use the Wayback Machine to identify when the change occurred and what the site looked like before the change.
Try to find a snapshot of a website that has since been taken down. What does finding deleted content through the Wayback Machine tell us about the permanence of online information?

Write a 500-word report summarizing your findings and reflecting on the Wayback Machine's value and limitations as a verification tool.

Part B: Finding Better Coverage

Exercise 20.6 — Viral Claim Investigation

For each of the following viral claims (or claims your instructor substitutes), search for better coverage and assess the claim:

"A study shows that 30 minutes of walking per day reduces the risk of heart disease by 35 percent."
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were this high, sea levels were 20 meters higher."
"Country X has seen a 200 percent increase in violent crime over the past decade."

For each claim: a. Use the most specific element of the claim as your search query. b. Identify the most authoritative source(s) that cover this specific claim. c. Does the coverage confirm, deny, or complicate the claim? d. If the claim is sourced from a specific study or report, can you find that original source? e. What rating would you assign to the claim and why?

Exercise 20.7 — Advanced Search Operators Practice

Practice using advanced search operators by completing the following tasks. For each task, record the search operator(s) you used and whether the approach was successful.

Find a government (.gov) report on immigration statistics published after 2020.
Find a .edu domain article on the effectiveness of prebunking interventions in misinformation research.
Search for exact phrase "third-party fact-checking" limited to news coverage from 2022.
Find news articles about community notes on Twitter/X that do NOT mention Elon Musk. (Use the exclude operator.)
Search for coverage of a specific political claim ("climate change is a hoax") limited to the site reuters.com or apnews.com.
Find the original academic paper behind any recent viral health claim you have encountered.

After completing these tasks, write a brief evaluation of which operators you found most useful and which were most difficult to apply.

Exercise 20.8 — Tracing a Statistic to Its Source

The following statistics have been shared widely online. For each, trace the claim to its primary source and assess whether the secondary coverage accurately represents what the original source actually says.

"The average American reads at a 6th-grade level." (Trace this claim to its actual source.)
"Students lose three months of learning over the summer break." (What study or report is this from? Does the study actually say this?)
"It takes 21 days to form a new habit." (What is the actual research basis for this claim? Is the original claim accurately represented in popular coverage?)

For each claim: a. Identify what appears to be the original source. b. Access and read the original source. c. Compare the original source's actual claim to the commonly circulated version. d. Assess how accurately the popular version represents the original. e. If there are distortions, describe specifically what was changed or omitted.

Exercise 20.9 — Consensus Checking

For each of the following topics, use multiple authoritative sources to assess the current state of expert consensus. Cite at least three independent authoritative sources (government health agencies, national academies of science, major peer-reviewed reviews) for each.

The relationship between social media use and adolescent mental health
The efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines
The scientific consensus on human-caused climate change
The effectiveness of "detox" diets

For each topic, write a 200-word summary of what the consensus is, how strong it is, and what the genuine areas of scientific uncertainty or debate are (if any).

Part C: Claim Tracing and Visual Verification

Exercise 20.10 — Reverse Image Search Basics

Your instructor will provide a set of five images (or you may use the following approach: find images that have been widely shared on social media for political or dramatic effect). For each image:

Perform a reverse image search using Google Images, TinEye, and Yandex Images.
Record all results found by each search engine.
Identify the earliest known use of the image (use TinEye's "Oldest" sort for this).
Identify the original context in which the image was used.
Assess whether the image's current circulation context matches its original context.

Write a 100-word summary for each image, assessing whether its current use is accurate or decontextualized.

Exercise 20.11 — Quote Verification

For each of the following widely circulated quotes (or quotes your instructor provides), verify whether the quote is authentic, accurately attributed, and accurately contextualized:

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." (Attributed to Albert Einstein — is this accurate?)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Attributed to Edmund Burke — what is the actual origin?)
Find a viral political quote from the past month in your own research and verify it.

For each quote: a. Can you find the original source of the quote? b. Did the attributed person actually say this? c. Is the quote taken out of context in any way that changes its meaning? d. When did this attribution originate, if the attribution is incorrect?

Exercise 20.12 — EXIF Metadata Analysis

Note: This exercise requires image editing or analysis software. Options include the free web tool Jeffrey's Exif Viewer (exifdata.com), or command-line tools like ExifTool.

Find three images you have taken yourself with a smartphone.
Extract their EXIF data.
Record what information is embedded, including (if present) GPS coordinates, timestamp, and device information.
Verify that the GPS coordinates match where you actually were when you took the photos.
Consider: if someone claimed these images were taken at a different time or place, what does the EXIF data tell us?

Then find three images from the internet (news photographs, not social media posts) and attempt to extract their EXIF data. Many will have stripped EXIF. Discuss: why might a news organization or social media platform strip EXIF data from published images?

Exercise 20.13 — Geolocation Challenge

Your instructor will provide three photographs showing outdoor scenes with identifiable visual elements (buildings, road markings, street signs, terrain). For each:

Identify all visual elements that might help locate the image (architectural styles, visible text, terrain features, vegetation).
Use Google Maps, Google Earth, and/or Google Street View to attempt to locate the scene depicted.
If you succeed in locating the scene, verify that the claimed location (if any claim was made) matches the actual location.
Document your step-by-step reasoning process.

This exercise should be completed in groups to allow collaborative problem-solving. After the exercise, discuss: What made some images easier to geolocate than others? What are the ethical considerations in geolocating images of people or private spaces?

Exercise 20.14 — InVID/WeVerify Video Verification

Install the InVID/WeVerify browser extension (available for Chrome and Firefox). Using the extension:

Select a video that has been shared with claims about its context (your instructor will suggest candidates or you may find one through news coverage of viral videos).
Extract keyframes from the video using InVID.
Perform reverse image search on selected keyframes.
Check whether the video's context (where, when, who is depicted) matches what independent evidence shows.
Check the video's metadata if available.
Write a 300-word verification report on the video.

Part D: Domain Credibility Assessment

Exercise 20.15 — Evaluating Domain Credibility Tools

Use Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com), AllSides (allsides.com), and Ad Fontes Media (adfontesmedia.com) to rate ten news sources. Choose a mix: two that you consider highly credible, two that you consider low credibility, and six that are unfamiliar to you.

For each source: a. Record the rating from each tool. b. Note any significant differences between the three tools' ratings of the same source. c. Where the tools disagree, what might account for the disagreement?

After completing the ratings, write a 600-word evaluation of the tools themselves: 1. How well do they agree with each other? 2. How well do their ratings align with your own assessments based on the verification skills practiced in this chapter? 3. What do these tools do well? What do they fail to capture? 4. Under what circumstances would you find these tools most useful?

Exercise 20.16 — About Page Analysis

Analyze the "About" pages of five organizations: two well-established credible organizations, two organizations known to be partisan or low-credibility, and one unfamiliar organization.

For each About page: 1. What information is provided about leadership? Are leaders' credentials verifiable? 2. Is funding disclosed? If so, who are funders? 3. Is an editorial or publication process described? 4. Is there a physical address? Is it verifiable? 5. What is your overall credibility assessment based on the About page alone?

Then independently assess credibility using lateral reading. Did the About page accurately signal the organization's actual credibility, or was it misleading?

Write a 500-word reflection on what About pages can and cannot tell us about organizational credibility.

Part E: Extended Projects

Exercise 20.17 — Full SIFT Walkthrough

Select a piece of content you encountered on social media in the past week that made a factual claim and that you were uncertain about. Conduct a full SIFT evaluation, documenting each step:

Stop: Describe the content and your initial emotional reaction. Investigate the Source: Who made this claim? What did lateral reading reveal about the source? Find Better Coverage: What do authoritative sources say about this claim? How widely is it covered? Trace the Claim: Can you find the original source? Does the claim accurately represent the original?

Write a 600-800 word evaluation report following this structure and end with an overall assessment of the claim's credibility.

Exercise 20.18 — Misinformation Autopsy

Select a piece of viral misinformation that was widely shared and later debunked (you may research notable cases, or your instructor may provide a specific case).

Conduct a retrospective SIFT analysis: 1. What was the claim, and where did it originate? 2. What made it viral? What emotional triggers did it exploit? 3. What signals of low credibility were present that SIFT skills could have detected? 4. What was the mechanism of the misinformation — fabrication, decontextualization, satire mistaken for fact, or something else? 5. How long did it circulate before being corrected? What was the correction's reach relative to the original? 6. What could have been done at the individual, platform, or media level to prevent its spread?

This exercise should produce a 1,000-word "misinformation autopsy" report.

Exercise 20.19 — SIFT Skill Teaching

You have been asked to teach SIFT skills to a group of people unfamiliar with the framework. Design a one-hour workshop plan that includes:

A brief explanation of why traditional source evaluation approaches fail.
Introduction to the SIFT framework.
At least two hands-on practice activities.
A brief lesson on lateral reading with practice.
One module on visual verification (reverse image search or EXIF analysis).
Assessment of learning.

Write your workshop plan in sufficient detail that another person could deliver it. Include the specific examples, websites, and exercises you would use.

Exercise 20.20 — Comparative Media Coverage Analysis

Select a single news story from the past month that has been covered differently by outlets across the political spectrum. Using AllSides or Ad Fontes Media to identify outlets of different political orientations, collect at least five articles covering the same story from outlets rated across the left-center-right spectrum.

Analyze: 1. What factual claims does each outlet make? Are they consistent across outlets? 2. Where do the outlets differ — in facts, in framing, in what they emphasize? 3. Which differences are factual (potentially amenable to fact-checking) and which are framing differences (matters of emphasis and interpretation)? 4. What does this exercise reveal about the relationship between factual accuracy and political framing?

Write a 700-word analysis of your findings.

Exercise 20.21 — Building a Personal Verification Checklist

Based on all the techniques covered in this chapter, build a personalized verification checklist that you can reference in your own information consumption. The checklist should:

Be brief enough to reference in under one minute.
Include the most important verification moves for claims you encounter most often.
Include links to the specific tools you will use.
Be organized by claim type (visual content, statistical claims, quotes, source assessment).

Share your checklist with a classmate and compare: what differences do you notice? What choices did each of you make about what to prioritize?

Exercise 20.22 — Cross-Platform Tracing

Select a viral claim that appears on at least three different social media platforms (TikTok, Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook). Trace the claim's spread:

When did the claim first appear on each platform?
Does the claim appear in the same form on all platforms, or does it change as it spreads?
Can you identify the original source of the claim?
How has the claim been modified, embellished, or stripped of context as it spread?

This exercise requires both SIFT skills and some familiarity with cross-platform tracking tools (CrowdTangle, if available; or manual tracking through platform-specific searches). Write a 500-word report documenting your tracing process and findings.

Exercise 20.23 — Deepfake Detection Practice

Your instructor will provide a set of videos, some genuine and some AI-manipulated. For each video:

Apply the visual heuristics described in Section 20.7 (blinking, facial boundary artifacts, lighting consistency, temporal stability, audio-visual sync).
Note any anomalies you observe.
Make a determination: genuine or potentially manipulated?
After completing your assessments, compare to the actual answers provided by your instructor.

Reflect: How accurate were you? What kinds of manipulations were hardest to detect? What does this imply about relying solely on visual inspection for deepfake detection?

Exercise 20.24 — Research Design: Measuring SIFT Effectiveness

Design an experimental study that would measure whether SIFT instruction improves students' ability to evaluate online source credibility. Your study design should:

Define the outcome you are measuring (credibility assessment accuracy, source evaluation time, sharing behavior, or some combination).
Describe the experimental and control conditions.
Specify the sample population and sample size.
Describe the materials that would be used for testing (what websites or claims would participants evaluate?).
Specify how you would measure the outcome.
Address potential confounds.
Discuss ethical considerations.

This exercise can be completed individually or in small groups. Compare your designs with other groups and discuss: What differences in design choice would produce different results? What would be the most rigorous possible test of SIFT's effectiveness?

Exercise 20.25 — SIFT for Scientific Claims

SIFT was originally developed primarily for news and political content but applies equally to scientific and health claims. Apply SIFT to the following health/science claims encountered in online contexts:

A health influencer on Instagram claims that a specific supplement "boosts immunity" based on a study.
A viral Facebook post claims that 5G mobile networks cause cancer.
A YouTube video claims that the moon landing was faked, citing specific evidence.

For each claim: a. Stop: What emotional trigger does this claim use? b. Investigate the source: Who is making this claim? c. Find better coverage: What do health agencies and major science organizations say? d. Trace the claim: For the supplement claim, find the actual study. Does it say what the influencer claims? e. Apply scientific consensus checking: What does the weight of evidence show?

Exercise 20.26 — Personal Media Diet Audit

Conduct a systematic audit of your own regular information sources over one week. For each source you regularly consume (news apps, social media, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc.):

Apply lateral reading to assess its credibility.
Identify its political orientation using domain credibility tools.
Note its primary subjects and frames.
Calculate the overall ideological diversity of your information diet.

After the audit, write a 600-word reflection on: - What surprised you about your own media diet? - Are there significant gaps — topics or perspectives you rarely encounter? - What changes, if any, do you plan to make? - What does the concept of "balanced media diet" mean, and is it achievable or desirable?

Exercise 20.27 — Source Evaluation Field Test

Your instructor will conduct a live demonstration in which several unfamiliar URLs are provided without context. Working individually (no collaboration allowed):

Apply SIFT to each URL, timing yourself (aim for 2-3 minutes per URL).
Record your credibility assessment for each URL.
Document what specific lateral reading you performed.
After completing all URLs, compare your assessments to the instructor's assessment.

Discuss as a class: Where did individual assessments diverge? What information led to the biggest differences in assessment? What does this suggest about the reliability of individual verification judgments?

Exercise 20.28 — Synthesis: SIFT in Practice

After completing at least ten of the exercises in this chapter, write a 1,000-word reflection that addresses:

Which SIFT skills have you found most difficult to apply? Why?
Which have you found most useful in real-world information consumption?
What changes have you noticed in your own information behavior since beginning SIFT instruction?
What situations or content types does SIFT handle poorly? What additional skills or frameworks would complement SIFT in those situations?
How would you explain the value of SIFT to someone who had never heard of it?

Exercise 20.29 — Building a Classroom Verification Resource

Working in groups of 4-5, build a classroom verification resource: a curated, annotated guide to the best tools and strategies for SIFT verification, organized by task type. The guide should include:

Source investigation tools (Wikipedia approach, WHOIS, Wayback Machine)
Better coverage finding strategies (search operators, authoritative sources by domain)
Claim tracing tools (reverse image search, video verification, quote checking)
Domain credibility resources (MBFC, AllSides, Ad Fontes with limitations noted)
Visual verification workflows (deepfake heuristics, EXIF analysis, geolocation)

Present your guide to the class. The class will vote on the best elements from each group's guide to compile a final classroom resource.

Exercise 20.30 — SIFT Application to a Breaking News Event

During a breaking news event (your instructor will identify an appropriate event, or you will apply this exercise to a real breaking news story during the course), practice applying SIFT skills in real time:

Identify three to five claims circulating in the first hours of coverage.
Apply SIFT to each claim, documenting the state of evidence at the time.
Return to each claim 24 hours later: what has subsequent reporting confirmed, revised, or corrected?
How did the fog of early coverage affect the accuracy of initial claims?
What does this exercise teach about the appropriate level of confidence to place in early-stage breaking news reporting?

End of Chapter 20 Exercises