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.