Skill: Just Add Wikipedia with Mike Caulfield

Summary

The video explains how to use Wikipedia as a tool to assess the credibility of information sources. It suggests searching for the source on Wikipedia to gain context and determine trustworthiness. The video demonstrates this method using examples like The New York Times, highlighting its long history and reliability, and The Buffalo Chronicle, noted for being a fake news site. It advises checking citations and recognizing that a lack of a Wikipedia entry for a major news source might indicate it’s not as credible as assumed.

Takeaways

• 🔍 Fact-checkers recommend starting with Wikipedia to learn about a source.
• 📖 Wikipedia is a frequently updated online encyclopedia with strict sourcing rules.
• ❌ Despite criticisms, Wikipedia articles are quickly corrected when errors occur.
• 📝 Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source for research but is great for gaining context.
• ✅ Look for key details on Wikipedia pages, such as the history and credibility of a source.
• 📰 Major sources like The New York Times have detailed Wikipedia entries, reflecting their reputation and history.
• 🏅 Factors like Pulitzer Prizes and longevity can signal credibility but should be viewed in context.
• 🚫 Sites like The Buffalo Chronicle may not have a Wikipedia page, indicating a potential lack of trustworthiness.
• 🔗 Wikipedia entries include citations, allowing you to verify the claims.
• 🧠 If a source lacks a Wikipedia entry, consider investigating further or verifying the story elsewhere.

Q & A

What is the first step fact-checkers often take when assessing a new source?

The first step fact-checkers often take is to look up the person, publication, or group on Wikipedia to gain context about the source.

Why is Wikipedia a useful tool for assessing sources, according to the video?

Wikipedia is useful because it provides a neutral point of view and requires reliable sources for its content. It is frequently updated and errors are usually corrected quickly.

What should you avoid doing when using Wikipedia for research?

You should avoid using Wikipedia as your main source for a research report, as it is better suited for providing context and orientation rather than being the primary reference.

What are the two key questions to ask when using Wikipedia to assess a source?

The two key questions are: 1) Is the site or organization the type of source you thought it was? 2) Does the new information make the source more or less trustworthy?

What clues from the New York Times Wikipedia page suggest it is a reliable source?

The New York Times has been around since 1851, has worldwide influence, is considered a national newspaper of record, and has won numerous Pulitzer Prizes, which suggest it is a reliable source.

How can you verify the claims made on Wikipedia?

You can verify the claims made on Wikipedia by scrolling down to check the citations listed at the bottom of the article.

What does the Wikipedia article say about the Buffalo Chronicle?

The Buffalo Chronicle appears on a Wikipedia article titled 'List of fake news sites' and is described as often posting fake news, particularly in Canada.

What should you do if a source doesn't have a Wikipedia page?

If a source doesn't have a Wikipedia page, it could indicate the source is not as established or trustworthy as expected. You might want to find the story from a more established source or verify it carefully.

Does the absence of a Wikipedia page automatically mean a source is unreliable?

No, the absence of a Wikipedia page doesn't automatically mean the source is unreliable, but it may be a sign that you should investigate further or verify the information from other sources.

What general advice does the video give about using information from dubious sites?

The video advises that even if dubious sites occasionally publish real news, they should generally be avoided as a source of information because they are not reliable.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Using Wikipedia as a First Step in Fact-Checking

The speaker begins by introducing the concept of information verification. They suggest following the same initial steps that professional fact-checkers use, which is turning to Wikipedia to get an overview of a person, publication, or organization. Wikipedia, although criticized, is emphasized as a reliable tool with strict sourcing rules, frequently updated entries, and a neutral point of view. While it may not be suitable as a primary source for research, it provides helpful context for assessing a source's trustworthiness.

🌐 Gaining Context from Wikipedia

Wikipedia is presented as an online encyclopedia that's continuously updated and carefully monitored for factual accuracy. The speaker acknowledges the criticism Wikipedia has faced but defends its utility in helping users gain a quick, unbiased overview of unfamiliar sources. Wikipedia is especially useful in providing context about organizations, and while it shouldn't be used as the main source for academic research, it offers reliable information that helps users understand a topic better before deeper investigation.

📄 A Practical Example with a News Article

In this section, the speaker walks through a real-world example using an article from The New York Times about JUUL. They demonstrate how to strip the URL and perform a quick Wikipedia search to assess the credibility of the source. Through this process, they show how Wikipedia can offer key historical and credibility indicators, such as the newspaper’s longstanding presence and reputation for winning Pulitzer Prizes, which together build a clearer picture of the source’s reliability.

🔍 Analyzing Information on Wikipedia

The speaker emphasizes that evaluating a source on Wikipedia is not about following a rigid checklist but instead focusing on two key questions: Is the source what you expected? And does this new information make the source more or less reliable? They use the example of The New York Times to illustrate how details like its long-standing history and awards, while not definitive, offer clues about the credibility of the source.

📰 Investigating a Dubious Source: Buffalo Chronicle

Next, the speaker shows how to apply this technique to an unreliable source, using the Buffalo Chronicle as an example. When searched on Wikipedia, it appears in a list of fake news sites. The speaker highlights that, although such sources might occasionally publish real news, they aren’t reliable. The lesson here is that Wikipedia can act as a red flag for dubious sources, helping users avoid misinformation.

🔧 A Versatile Method for Any Browser or Device

The speaker reassures the audience that this Wikipedia-checking technique works across all browsers and devices. Whether on a computer or mobile device, one can quickly perform a Wikipedia search by adding the site’s name followed by 'Wikipedia' in the search bar, making it a simple and effective tool for assessing source reliability.

❓ What if There's No Wikipedia Entry?

The speaker addresses the scenario where a source does not have a Wikipedia page. This is common for major, trusted organizations, which almost always have entries. If a supposed reputable source is missing a Wikipedia page, that may indicate it’s not what it seems. While this doesn’t mean the information is necessarily wrong, it suggests the user should double-check the information or consider finding a more established source.

Keywords

💡Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows users to create and edit articles. The video highlights Wikipedia as a first step for fact-checkers when investigating a source's credibility. Despite its reputation for errors, the video argues that Wikipedia's strict rules and neutral point of view make it a reliable starting point to gather context about a person, publication, or group.

💡Fact-checking

Fact-checking refers to the process of verifying the accuracy of information. The video promotes using tools like Wikipedia as part of a fact-checking method to assess sources, especially when dealing with unfamiliar sites. It encourages cross-referencing facts with reliable sources to determine the credibility of the information presented.

💡Source credibility

Source credibility refers to the trustworthiness and reliability of the information provided by a particular source. The video advises investigating a source's background using Wikipedia to evaluate whether it is credible or dubious, such as in the examples of The New York Times (a reputable source) and The Buffalo Chronicle (a fake news site).

💡Citations

Citations are references to the original sources of information or claims made within an article. The video emphasizes the importance of checking citations in Wikipedia to verify the accuracy of the facts. This process helps users ensure that claims are backed by reliable evidence, reinforcing the reliability of the information.

💡Neutral point of view

A neutral point of view refers to presenting information without bias or favoritism. Wikipedia enforces this standard in its articles, making it a valuable resource for fact-checkers to get an impartial overview of a subject. The video explains that this neutrality is essential for providing context about a source's reliability.

💡New York Times

The New York Times is a widely respected American newspaper known for its high-quality journalism. The video uses this publication as an example of a trustworthy source, mentioning its long history, global influence, and numerous Pulitzer Prizes. Its reputation contrasts with less reliable outlets, helping viewers understand the characteristics of credible news organizations.

💡Pulitzer Prize

The Pulitzer Prize is an award recognizing excellence in journalism and the arts. In the video, The New York Times' numerous Pulitzer Prizes are highlighted as indicators of the paper's high standards in journalism, thus helping to establish its credibility as a trusted source.

💡Fake news

Fake news refers to deliberately false or misleading information presented as news. The video discusses The Buffalo Chronicle, identified as a fake news site, to show the importance of verifying sources. It stresses that while such outlets may occasionally report true stories, they are generally untrustworthy.

💡Buffalo Chronicle

The Buffalo Chronicle is presented in the video as an example of a fake news site. It illustrates how checking Wikipedia can help reveal if a source is dubious, as it appears in a Wikipedia list of fake news sites. This example reinforces the need to vet lesser-known sources carefully before trusting them.

💡Browser search technique

The browser search technique involves using a search engine to quickly find a Wikipedia page for a source by appending 'Wikipedia' to the URL. The video teaches this simple method as an efficient way to assess the background and credibility of unfamiliar publications or organizations.

Highlights

Wikipedia can be used as a first step for assessing unfamiliar sources, just like professional fact-checkers do.

Wikipedia has strict rules about sourcing facts to reliable sources, and errors are usually corrected quickly.

Because Wikipedia authors must adopt a neutral point of view, it often provides the best available introduction to a subject.

Wikipedia should not be used as a main source for research reports, but it is useful for gaining context.

Using Wikipedia helps orient users to what a source is about, allowing them to determine trustworthiness.

In this video, a technique is demonstrated for using Wikipedia to assess sources, starting with a simple search.

Example: When evaluating a New York Times article, Wikipedia shows it’s a well-established newspaper with global influence and many Pulitzer Prizes.

The longevity and reputation of a publication like the New York Times provide signals about its reliability, though no single factor is conclusive.

All claims made in Wikipedia articles are backed up by citations, which can be verified for further accuracy.

Example: The Buffalo Chronicle appears on Wikipedia's list of fake news sites, signaling it’s not a reliable source.

Adding Wikipedia to the URL or searching for it separately helps quickly assess the reputation of a site or organization.

If no Wikipedia page exists for a major news source, it could be a sign that the source is less reliable than expected.

A lack of a Wikipedia entry doesn't necessarily mean a story is false, but it may warrant further investigation.

This technique of using Wikipedia works across browsers, search engines, and devices, making it widely accessible.

If an unfamiliar source lacks a Wikipedia page, consider finding the story from a more established source or double-check the information carefully.

Transcripts

There are countless sources of information out there.

So what do we do when we find an unfamiliar source to determine if it's something that

we want to trust?

Now, this may surprise you.

But I'd advise you to do with fact checkers around the world do as their first step, I

want you to go to Wikipedia, and get a summary of what that person that publication or group

behind that website is all about.

Now, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia or reference source, with entries being added

and updated all the time.

And I know you may have heard bad things about Wikipedia in the past.

But the Wikipedia community has strict rules about sourcing facts to reliable sources,

in any errors in Wikipedia, are usually corrected very quickly.

And because authors must adopt a neutral point of view, its articles are often the best available

introduction to a subject on the web.

Now, in some cases, like if you're writing a research report, you don't want to use Wikipedia

as your main source of information.

But it can be really useful for gaining context to help orient you to what a source is all

about.

So in this video, I'm going to show you a simple technique to use Wikipedia to assess

sources.

So here's an example.

This is an article from the New York Times reporting that the e cigarette vaping company

JUUL is being accused of intentionally buying ads on sites like Nickelodeon and Cartoon

Network in order to target teenagers.

So what we do is this, we go up to the search bar here, we're going to strip off everything

from that forward slash over.

And we're just going to type Wikipedia here.

Now that's nothing special about this search.

This is just a search, you'll see it floats the Wikipedia article to the top of the search

results.

What do we look for on that Wikipedia page?

It varies.

Rather than giving you a checklist of things to look for on a Wikipedia page, I just want

you to focus on two organizing questions.

First, is the site or organization, the type of source that you thought it was?

And second, does the new information make the source more or less trustworthy?

So for instance, we go to the New York Times, we first look on the box to the right, it

says is a daily newspaper founded in 1851, it's been around for about 170 years now each

doesn't necessarily mean a source is reliable.

But the fact that has been around so long shows at the very least it's a well established

organization.

There are also reliable sources that haven't been around long at all.

Of course, these pieces of information only provide clues or signals, we can't draw conclusions

from any one of them individually.

But together they start to paint a picture.

Then we read the article for more details, we see that it's an American newspaper with

worldwide influence and readership that is considered a national newspaper record.

It also has won Pulitzer Prizes for its journalism, in fact, more Pulitzer Prizes than any other

newspaper, if we expected this to be a major news source.

All of these signs match our expectations.

Remember that all claims made in Wikipedia are backed up by citations.

So you can always scroll down if you want to verify those citations firsthand.

Now, here's an example from a publication called the buffalo Chronicle.

Now the headline may seem plausible.

But before we even think about the claim being made, we're gonna investigate the source.

If you just added Wikipedia to the URL, you won't see an entry for it in the search results.

But what you do see is it appears in Wikipedia article called list of fake news sites.

Clicking into that article, we can read that the buffalo chronicle post fake news, often

Canadian, if we wanted to investigate further, we could scroll down and check the citations

to learn more.

Sometimes, these dubious sites do publish Real News.

But regardless of whether or not a particular story is accurate, this is not the source

we want to get our news from.

Now, there's nothing magic about this technique, right?

This will work in any browser, it'll work with any search engine, if you're using a

phone or a tablet, you just open a new tab in search the name of the site along with

the word Wikipedia, and you get to the Wikipedia entry just as quickly.

So what happens if you do this Wikipedia trick, you don't find it entry?

Major news sources usually have an entry on Wikipedia.

So if you think you're reading something from a trusted major news organization, and they

don't have a Wikipedia page, that could be a sign that is not the source you thought

it was.

Now that doesn't mean the story is wrong, right?

That doesn't mean it's a bad source.

But it's enough that you might want to try to find the story from a more established

source, or at the very least, slow down and check everything twice.