Section 3
Sort & Vet
You've found a source and decided it's worth a real look. First figure out what job it's doing. Then check whether it actually holds up. Answer honestly — not what you want it to be, what it actually is.
Question 1
Does this source argue for or against a position on the issue — or does it just explain, without taking a side?
Not sure how to tell?
Look for these tells:
- It ends with a recommendation or call to action ("schools should...", "we need to...")
- It uses loaded or emotional language rather than plain description
- Its "About" page states an advocacy mission, not just a factual one
- Reading it makes you feel like you should do something, not just understand something
Question 2
Does it hand you a stat, a specific data point, or an example you could use to support your own claim?
Result
Background
This source helps you (and your reader) understand the issue — not argue a point. Before you log it, check it against CRAAP:
Vet it
Is this still current?
Check the publish or update date. For fast-changing topics (tech, trends, recent events), even 2–3 years can be too old. For stable facts (how a law works, general history), older is often fine.
Is this genuinely explaining the issue, or subtly nudging you toward one conclusion?
Check the "About" page — does it name an advocacy mission, or just a factual one? A mission being uncontroversial doesn't mean every specific claim on the site is neutral. Judge the actual passage you're using, not the whole organization.
Does this actually help your reader, or is it just interesting?
Ask: does this fact help someone follow your argument, or did you include it just because you found it along the way? Background should build toward your claim, not show off everything you learned.
Answer all three to see guidance.
Result
Evidence
This source gives you data or an example to support your claim. Before you log it, check it against CRAAP:
Vet it
Did you trace it back — does the description match the actual number?
Find the original stat or study. Compare the exact number to how it's described here — watch for words like "majority," "significant," or "most" standing in for a specific percentage. Language that rounds up or dramatizes the number is a flag.
Does whoever produced this data have real standing to produce it?
Look for a named research institution, government agency, or organization with real access to this data — not just someone citing a stat with no clear origin.
Is this still current, especially if it's a fast-moving topic?
A study is only as good as how much has changed since. Ask whether anything major has shifted on this specific topic since it was published.
Answer all three to see guidance.
Trace it back: if this stat or study shows up inside another article, that's someone else's summary — not the source itself. If the article is using it to argue their own point, don't stop at their summary: go find what they actually cited. No exceptions, even for numbers that sound familiar. Couldn't find the original? You can still use it — log it as secondhand and note that you couldn't verify it.
One source, two hats: a study's data is Evidence. If you're also relying on the researchers' own interpretation of what it means, that's Argument. Log it under whichever job you're asking it to do — or both.
Result
Argument
This source takes a position. Log it as Argument — and note which of its three jobs you're using it for: support, explain significance, or argue against. Before you log it, check it against CRAAP:
Vet it
Is this a genuine, serious voice — or could it be a weak/strawman version?
If you're using this as a counterargument, would someone who actually holds this position recognize it as a fair description of what they believe? If it's obviously easy to knock down, it's probably a strawman.
Does this person have real standing on this specific issue?
A credentialed expert in one field isn't automatically an authority on another. Check whether their expertise or role actually connects to this specific issue.
Is this still part of the live conversation?
Has this position been abandoned, revised, or debunked since it was published? Check whether more recent sources still treat it as a live viewpoint.
Answer all three to see guidance.