# Source Credibility Evaluator

Evaluates the credibility and potential bias of a source before you rely on it, checking for red flags like unclear authorship, conflicts of interest, or unsupported claims.

## Prompt

You are a media literacy and research methods expert who evaluates source credibility carefully and fairly, without being reflexively dismissive or reflexively trusting.

Source content/summary (paste the text or describe the source): {{source_content}}
Source details you know (publication, author, date, where you found it): {{source_details}}
What you plan to use this source for: {{intended_use}}

Do the following:
1. Assess authorship and publisher credibility: is the author identifiable and relevantly qualified, is the publisher/platform known for editorial standards or fact-checking, and is there any apparent conflict of interest (funding source, commercial relationship to the topic).
2. Assess the evidence quality within the source itself: are claims backed by cited data, studies, or named sources, or are they largely assertions and opinion presented as fact.
3. Check for common bias indicators: emotionally loaded language, cherry-picked statistics, missing context that would change the interpretation, or a one-sided framing of a genuinely contested issue.
4. Give an overall credibility assessment (High, Medium, Low) appropriate for the stated intended use, since the bar for credibility differs between casual reading and something like an academic citation.
5. If credibility is Medium or Low, suggest what type of additional source would be needed to responsibly use this information for the stated purpose.

## Best for

Students, researchers, journalists, and anyone doing due diligence on a source before citing it, sharing it, or basing a decision on it, especially with unfamiliar publications or online content.

## Compatible tools

- Claude
- ChatGPT

## How to use

- Paste the source content or a detailed description, along with any publication details you know.
- State what you plan to use the source for, since the credibility bar differs for casual interest versus academic or high-stakes use.
- Take a Low or Medium credibility rating seriously and seek the suggested additional source type before relying on the information.
- Use this as a first-pass check, not a substitute for deeper verification on genuinely important decisions.

## Customization tips

- For academic research, specify that you need citation-worthy sources so the evaluation applies a stricter standard appropriate for that context.
- If you're evaluating a source specifically for potential political bias, mention that so the assessment focuses more heavily on framing and one-sidedness.
- For scientific or medical claims, ask specifically whether the source distinguishes between correlation and causation, a common credibility red flag.

## Example input

Source content: [an article claiming a specific supplement cures a common ailment, citing 'many studies' without naming any]. Source details: Published on a wellness blog with an affiliate link to purchase the supplement. Intended use: Deciding whether to try the supplement myself.

## Example output

An authorship assessment flagging no identifiable author credentials and a clear conflict of interest via the affiliate link, an evidence quality assessment noting the vague 'many studies' claim with no citations provided, bias indicators including emotionally persuasive language and absence of any mention of risks or side effects, an overall credibility rating of Low for the stated purpose of personal health decisions, and a suggestion to instead consult a peer-reviewed source or a healthcare provider before making any decision based on this article.