Tech Made Simple

Hot Topics: How to Fix Bluetooth Pairing Problems | Complete Guide to Facebook Privacy | How to Block Spam Calls | Snapchat Symbol Meaning

We may earn commissions when you buy from links on our site. Why you can trust us.

author photo

How to Sort Fact from Fiction Online

by Christina DesMarais on May 20, 2012

You can’t believe everything you read—especially when it’s online.

In fact, The Atlantic recently posted a story about a college professor who teaches a course in which he aims to help students become better consumers of historical information by encouraging them to create things like Wikipedia pages about fabricated people and events.

While Wikipedia—with more than 21 million articles (3.9 million in English)—can be a very useful and often trustworthy source of information, its contents can be written and edited by anyone. In addition to the possibility that a Wikipedia page could include inaccurate information that a volunteer editor doesn’t catch, some Wikipedia pages are biased or written in a way to show a person or company in a favorable light. For these reasons it’s generally not considered a reputable source for academic papers, for example.

But Wikipedia isn’t the only place on the Web where inaccurate information can live—far from it. In fact, if you really want to know if something you’re seeing online is true, your best bet is to do invest some time and do a bit of research.


You may have seen something on Facebook lately about a 14-year-old who had been shot six times by his stepfather while protecting his two-year-old sister from the man. Before you repost the story, and supposedly send 45 cents from Facebook to a fund for the boy’s medical costs, check Snopes, a website that aims to validate or debunk urban legends, questionable e-mail forwards or Internet rumors. You'll learn the whole thing is a complete fabrication that's been circulating in various versions for years.

Or maybe you’ve seen a claim that the IRS pays billions in tax refunds to workers who are in the U.S. illegally. Before you believe it, head to FactCheck, a nonpartisan, nonprofit that aims to “reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” According to the site, the trending message is true: “The Treasury Department’s Inspector General determined that $4.2 billion was paid in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2005. Leading Democrats are resisting a bill that would stop future payments...At issue here are the federal child tax credits that can be claimed by persons with dependent children under age 17.”

Bad Grammar or Spelling is a Tip-Off

If something is written badly, there’s a good chance it’s not credible news. Other flags include messages in all caps and sites that look less than professional. Legitimate sources care about the quality of their communication.

Lack of Impartiality

Lack of bias is one thing that sets quality communication apart from propaganda, spam and other undesirable online messaging. While there’s no shortage of digital rants and raves that are based in truth, many are unbalanced. If a Web page, e-mail or social network post is too far left, too far right, overly negative or too positive you should be suspicious that it might not be entirely accurate.

Check the Numbers

Some of the false Wikipedia entries the college students posted were busted when someone noticed that not only were they made recently, they were created by only a small number of new users.

As for news stories, beware of any that lack time stamps; they are important as historical markers.

Another way numbers can be helpful is by checking a company or a person’s social media reach because often those with more credibility have larger followings. There’s a caveat to that, however. Plenty of fake Twitter accounts exist in which people pose as celebrities. Look up Jennifer Aniston, for example, and you’ll find scads of them. Verified celebrity accounts have a small blue check next to the account name.


Computers and Software, Internet & Networking, Tips & How-Tos, Tech 101

Discussion loading


From Joan on May 21, 2012 :: 10:06 am

Snopes is funded by George Soros and is LEFT biased.



From Josh Kirschner on May 21, 2012 :: 11:40 am

Hi Joan, thank you for proving our point. There is no evidence whatsoever that Snopes is funded by George Soros and, in fact, considerable evidence that it is not.

Here are our sources:

Yet the rumor persists in email chains and online forums and comments (like yours above).



From Rich Moser on May 21, 2012 :: 11:36 am

But is Joan funded by the RIGHT? Who can be sure?



From Tori on May 21, 2012 :: 11:40 am

And where, exactly, did you get that information from, Joan?



From DZ on July 21, 2012 :: 9:02 am

Tori - why did you use"and” and “from” in that sentence?



From Pat on May 21, 2012 :: 12:41 pm

I recently found out about another site that’s even better than
It’s called If you sign up for their newsletter they send you the information about what scams are going around. If you friend them on facebook they send you the current hoaxes that are showing up on facebook on your facebook page. I was reading one such hoax and my sister-in-law had shared the very same hoax with me. For example, the one you specified about the boy being shot while protecting his sister. Also there’s been quite a few of children in hospitals fighting various diseases and if you hit “share” or “like” facebook will donate $1.00-$3.00. It’s not going to happen. And the pictures are being taken from private people without their consent.



From Steve on August 26, 2012 :: 2:14 pm

There’s a good reason that the rumors persist that George Soros is funding Snopes: it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that Snopes’ bias is so pervasive that it makes the site almost useless. If you have a question about politics or religion, forget it. The Mikelsons are radical leftists, and their articles exhibit their bias. You have to take the time to check their site thoroughly, but when you do you’ll see what I mean. Articles about events that they don’t want to admit are classed as “mixed” or “partially untrue” while issues they agree with are “true.” Anyone who’s used Snopes for a number of years has seen a swing to the radical left, and the site is no longer a viable place to get the truth. The Mikelsons apparently receive a lot of email complaining, a couple of years ago I wrote about their ridiculously biased treatment of an article about George Bush and received a FORM LETTER saying that “we’re not biased, you just don’t agree with our analysis.” I don’t know if they still do that, however, because the public is pretty much aware of their bias now.


Home | About | Meet the Team | Contact Us
Media Kit | Newsletter Sponsorships | Licensing & Permissions
Accessibility Statement
Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookie Policy

Techlicious participates in affiliate programs, including the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, which provide a small commission from some, but not all, of the "click-thru to buy" links contained in our articles. These click-thru links are determined after the article has been written, based on price and product availability — the commissions do not impact our choice of recommended product, nor the price you pay. When you use these links, you help support our ongoing editorial mission to provide you with the best product recommendations.

© Techlicious LLC.