How general are the principles of source criticism? Some principles are universal, other principles are specific to certain types of information sources. One may wonder whether the principles of source criticism are unique to the humanities. There is no consensus on the similarities and differences between the natural sciences and the humanities. Logical positivism asserted that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism stated that positivism is the basis of the sciences, while hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, according to, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands science and the humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstandings and paradigms. Hermeneutics is, therefore, a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and pre-understanding, while the sources of the natural sciences are not. The humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic".

Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific articles) that are products of prior understanding (and, for example, academic fraud).

Epistemology

Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and therefore the most general theories about how to evaluate sources of information. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without a basis in experience are not considered valid. Rationalism gives low priority to sources based on observations. For observations to be meaningful, they must be understood by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and good definition that focuses on evaluating the sources of information from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates sources of information based on their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluates sources based on how their values ​​and usefulness achieve certain results. Pragmatism is skeptical about asserted neutral sources of information.

The evaluation of knowledge or sources of information cannot be more certain than the construction of knowledge. If we accept the principle of fallibilism, we also have to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is closely related to scientific methods.

The presence of argument fallacies in sources is another type of philosophical criteria for evaluating sources. The flaws are presented by Walton (1998). Fallacies include the "ad hominem fallacy" (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the "straw man fallacy" (when an advocate misrepresents another person's position to make it seem less plausible than it really is, in order to more easily criticize or refute it.) See also fallacy.

Research methodology

Research methods are methods used to produce academic knowledge. Methods that are relevant to producing knowledge are also relevant to evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that inverts the methodology and uses it to evaluate the knowledge produced is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998).

science studies

Studies of quality assessment processes, such as peer review, book reviews, and normative criteria used in the evaluation of scientific and academic research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct.

Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, beginning with the author himself (Watson), general textbook authors, behavioral therapists, and a leading learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes of these distortions and analyzes Albert's study as an example of myth-making in the history of psychology. Studies of this type can be considered a special type of reception history (how Watson's article was received). It can also be considered as a type of critical history (as opposed to the ceremonial history of psychology, cf. Harris, 1980). Such studies are important for source criticism by revealing the bias introduced by referring to classical studies.

Textual criticism

Textual criticism (or broader: text philology) is part of philology, which is not only dedicated to the study of texts, but also edits and produces "scientific editions", "scholarly editions", "standard editions", "historical editions", "reliable editions", "reliable texts", "text editions" or "critical editions", which are editions in which careful scholarship has been employed to ensure that the information contained is as close to the original intentions of the author/composer as possible. (and which allows the user to compare and judge changes in editions published under the influence of the author/composer). The relationship between these types of works and the concept "source criticism" is evident in Danish, where they can be called "kildekritisk udgave" (directly translated as "source critical edition").

In other words, most editions of a given work are supposed to be full of noise and errors provided by the editors, so it is important to produce "scholarly editions." The work provided by text philology is an important part of source criticism in the humanities.

• - Paleography.

• - Textual criticism.

• - Greater criticism.

• - Historical editions (music)&action=edit&redlink=1 "Historical editions (music) (not yet written)").

• - Urtext editing.

Complete works and monumental editions.

Psychology

The study of eyewitness testimony is an important field of study used, among other purposes, to evaluate testimony in court. The basics of eyewitness fallibility include factors such as poor vision conditions, brief exposure, and stress. More subtle factors such as personal expectations, prejudices and stereotypes can intervene to create erroneous reports. Loftus (1996) discusses all of these factors and also shows that eyewitness memory is chronically inaccurate in surprising ways. An ingenious series of experiments reveals that memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned after the fact. New memories can be implanted and old ones unconsciously altered during interrogation.

Anderson (1978) and Anderson & Pichert (1977) reported an elegant experiment demonstrating how changing perspective affected people's ability to remember information that could not be remembered from another perspective.

In psychoanalysis, the concept of defense mechanism is important and can be considered a contribution to the theory of source criticism because it explains psychological mechanisms, which distort the reliability of human information sources.

Library and information sciences (LIS)

In library and information science (LIS) schools, sources are critiqued as part of the growing field of information literacy. Topics of study, such as relevance"), quality indicators of documents, types of documents and their qualities (e.g. academic editions), and related topics are studied in LIS and are relevant for source reviews. Bibliometrics is often used to find the most influential journal, authors, countries and institutions. The study of book reviews") and its role in book evaluation should also be mentioned.

One could argue that library and information education should provide source criticism at least at the same level as taught in upper secondary school (Gudmundsson, 2007).

The checklist approach has often been used in libraries and information sciences.[3] Meola (2004) provides a critique of this approach: "Reviewing the checklist".

Libraries sometimes provide advice on how their users can evaluate sources.[4][5]​.

The Library of Congress has a "Teaching with Primary Sources" (TPS) program.[6]​.

Ethics

Source criticism is also about ethical behavior and culture. This is a free press and an open society, including sources of information protection from persecution (cf., Whistleblower).

Photos

Photos are often manipulated during wars and for political purposes. A well-known example is Joseph Stalin's manipulation of a May 5, 1920 photograph in which Stalin's predecessor Lenin gave a speech to Soviet troops attended by Leon Trotsky. Stalin had later retouched Trotsky from this photograph. (cf. King, 1997). A recent example is reported by Healy (2008) about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.[7]​.

Internet sources

Much interest in evaluating Internet sources (such as Wikipedia) is reflected in the academic literature in library and information science and other fields. Mintz (2002) is an edited volume on this topic. Examples of literature examining Internet sources include Chesney (2006), Fritch & Cromwell (2001), Leth & Thurén (2000), and Wilkinson, Bennett, and Oliver (1997).

Archeology and history

"In history, the term historical method was first introduced systematically in the 16th century by Jean Bodin in his treatise on source criticism, Methodus ad facilem historiarium cognitionem (1566). Characteristically, Bodin's treatise sought to set out the ways in which reliable knowledge of the past could be established by checking sources against each other and by assessing the reliability of the information they convey, relating them to the interests involved." (Lorenz, 2001, p. 6870).

As written above, modern source criticism in history is closely related to the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795 – 1886), who influenced historical methods on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, although in quite different ways. American history developed in a more empiricist and anti-philosophical manner (cf., Novick, 1988).

Two of the best-known childhood rule books in history are Bernheim (1889) and Langlois and Seignobos (1898). These books provided a seven-step procedure (here cited from Howell & Prevenier, 2001, p. 70-71):.

1. • If all sources agree on an event, historians can consider the event proven.

2. • However, the majority does not govern; Even if most sources relate the events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3. • The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to external authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible to confirm the entire text.

4. • When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with more "authority", that is, the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5. • In general, the eyes are preferred, especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what occurred and, more specifically, when dealing with facts known to most contemporaries.

6. • If two independently created sources agree on an issue, the reliability of each is measurably improved.

7. • When two sources disagree (and there are no other means of evaluation), then historians take the source that seems to agree best with common sense.

Gudmundsson (2007, p. 38) writes: "Source criticism should not totally dominate later courses. Other important perspectives, for example philosophy of history/view of history, should not suffer from being neglected." This quote makes a distinction between source criticism on the one hand and historical philosophy on the other. However, different views of history and different specific theories about the field being studied can have important consequences for how sources are selected, interpreted, and used. Feminist scholars can, for example, select sources made by women and can interpret sources from a feminist perspective. Epistemology should therefore be considered part of source criticism. It is in particular related to "trend analysis".

In archaeology, radiocarbon dating is an important technique for establishing the age of information sources. Methods of this type were ideal when history was established as a scientific discipline and as a profession based on "scientific" principles in the latter part of the 1880s (although radiocarbon dating is a more recent example of such methods). The empiricist movement in history brought both "source criticism" as a research method and also in many countries large-scale publishing efforts to make valid editions of "source materials" such as important letters and official documents (e.g. facsimiles or transcriptions "Transcription (linguistics)")).

Historiography and the historical method include the study of the reliability of the sources used, in terms of, for example, authorship, credibility of the author, and authenticity or corruption of the text.

Bible studies

Source criticism, as used in biblical criticism), refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or editor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used synonymously.

Biblical source criticism originated in the century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted methods already developed for the investigation of the texts of classical antiquity (the Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the book of Genesis. It was later developed considerably by German scholars in what became known as "Higher Criticism", a term no longer widely used. The ultimate goal of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

Related to source criticism is redaction criticism, which seeks to determine how and why the redactor (editor) put the sources together in the same way he did. Also related is form criticism and the history of tradition, which seeks to reconstruct the oral prehistory behind the identified written sources.

Journalism

Journalists often work under severe time pressure and have access to only a limited number of sources of information, such as news agencies, people who may be interviewed, newspapers, magazines, etc. The possibility of journalists to carry out serious source criticism is therefore limited compared to, for example, the possibilities of historians.

Legal Studies

The most important legal sources are created by parliaments, governments, courts and legal researchers. They can be written or informal and based on established practices. Views on the quality of sources differ among legal philosophies: legal positivism is the view that the text of the law should be considered in isolation, while legal realism, (legal) interpretivism&action=edit&redlink=1 "(legal) interpretivism (not yet drafted"), critical legal studies"), and feminist legal criticism interpret the law more broadly.

• - Bias.

• - Deception.

• - Exegesis.

• - Alerter.

• - American Library Association (1994) Evaluating Information: A Basic Checklist. Brochure. American Library Association.

• - Anderson, Richard C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. IN: NATO International Conference on Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, 1977, Amsterdam: Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Ed. by A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema & R. Glaser. New York: Plenum Press (pp. 67–82).

• - Anderson, Richard C. & Pichert, J. W. (1977). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift of perspective. Urbana, Il: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, April. 1977. (Technical Report 41). Available in full-text from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/31/83/58.pdf.

• - Bazerman, Charles (1995). The Informed Writer: Using Sources in the Disciplines. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin.

• - Bee, Ronald E. (1983). Statistics and Source Criticism. Vetus Testamentum, Volume 33, Number 4, 483–488.

• - Beecher-Monas, Erica (2007). Evaluating scientific evidence: an interdisciplinary framework for intellectual due process. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

• - Bernheim, Ernst (1889). Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie [Guidebook for Historical Method and the Philosophy of History]. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

• - Brundage, Anthony (2007). Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th Ed. Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. (3rd edition, 1989 cited in text above).

• - Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility. First Monday, 11(11), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html Archived November 24, 2012 at the Wayback Machine.

• - Encyclopædia Britannica (2006). Fatally Flawed. Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Nature's response March 23, 2006: http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf.

• - Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1988) Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography. Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, Winter, p. 195-202.

• - Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1998) Technology Infrastructure and Information Literacy. Library Philosophy and Practice Vol. 1, No. 1.

• - Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 499–507.

• - Gerhart, Susan L. (2004). Do Web search engines suppress controversy? Archived February 5, 2013 at the Wayback Machine. First Monday 9(1).

• - Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html Supplementary information: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/extref/438900a-s1.doc.

• - Gudmundsson, David (2007). När kritiska elever är målet. Att undervisa and källkritik for gymnasiet. [When the Goal is Critical Students. Teaching Source Criticism in Upper Secondary School]. Malmö, Sweden: Malmö högskola. Full text.

• - Hardtwig, W. (2001). Ranke, Leopold von (1795–1886). IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (12738–12741).

• - Harris, Ben (1979). Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 2, pp. 151–160. link to full text.

• - Harris, Ben (1980). Ceremonial versus critical history of psychology. American Psychologist, 35(2), 218–219. (Note).

• - Healy, Jack (2008). Was the Dear Leader Photoshopped In? November 7, 2008, 2:57 p.m. m. [President Kim Jong Il, North Korea]. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/was-the-dear-leader-photoshopped-in/?scp=7&sq=Kim%20Jong-il&st=cse.

• - Hjørland, Birger (2008). Source criticism. In: Epistemological Lifeboat. Ed. by Birger Hjørland & Jeppe Nicolaisen.

• - Howell, Martha & Prevenier, Walter (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8560-6.

• - Katzer, Jeffrey; Cook, Kenneth H. & Crouch, Wayne W. (1998). Evaluating Information: A Guide for Users of Social Science Research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

• - King, David (1997) The Commissar Vanishes: the falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia. Metropolitan Books, New York.

• - Langlois, Charles-Victor & Seignobos, Charles (1898). Introduction aux études historiques [Introduction to the Study of History]. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Full text. Introduction to the Study of History Full text.

• - Leth, Göran & Thurén, Torsten (2000). Källkritik för internet. Stockholm: Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar. (Hentet 2007-11-30).

• - Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Revised edition Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. (Original edition: 1979).

• - Lorenz, C. (2001). History: Theories and Methods. IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Pp. 6869–6876).

• - Mathewson, Daniel B. (2002). A critical binary: Source criticism and deconstructive criticism. Journal for the study of the Old Testament no98, pp. 3–28. Abstract: When classifying the array of interpretive methods currently available, biblical critics regularly distinguish between historical-critical methods, on the one hand, and literary critical methods, on the other. Frequently, methods on one side of the divide are said to be antagonistic to certain methods on the other. This article examines two such presumed antagonistic methods, source criticism and deconstructive criticism, and argues that they are not, in fact, antagonistic, but similar: both are postmodern movements, and both share an interpretive methodology (insofar as it is correct to speak of a deconstructive methodology). This argument is illustrated with a source-critical and a deconstructive reading of Exodus 14.

• - Mattus, Maria (2007). Finding Credible Information: A Challenge to Students Writing Academic Essays. Human IT 9(2), 1–28. Hentet 2007-09-04 fra: http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-9/mm.pdf Archived July 28, 2021 at the Wayback Machine.

• - Meola, M (2004). Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates web-site evaluation. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 331-344. Downloaded 2008-10-23 from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v004/4.3meola.pdf.

• - Mintz, Anne P. (ed.). (2002). Web of disappointment. Misinformation on the Internet. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

• - Müller, Philipp (2009). Understanding history: Hermeneutics and source-criticism in historical scholarship. IN: Dobson, Miriam & Ziemann, Benjamin (eds): Reading primary sources. The interpretation of texts from nineteenth and twentieth-century history. London: Routledge (pp. 21–36).

• - Olden-Jørgensen, Sebastian (2001). Til Kilderne: Introduktion til Historisk Kildekritik (in Danish). [To the sources: Introduction to historical source criticism]. København: Gads Forlag. ISBN 978-87-12-03778-1.

• - Reinfandt, Christohp (2009). Reading texts after the linguistic tturn: approaches from literary studies and their implementation. IN: Dobson, Miriam & Ziemann, Benjamin (eds): Reading primary sources. The interpretation of texts from nineteenth and twentieth-century history. London: Routledge (pp. 37–54).

• - Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145–161. https://web.archive.org/web/20090731152623/http://www.si.umich.edu/rieh/papers/rieh_jasist2002.pdf.

• - Rieh, S. Y. (2005). Cognitive authority. I: K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior: A researchers' guide . Medford, NJ: Information Today (pp. 83–87). https://web.archive.org/web/20080512170752/http://newweb2.si.umich.edu/rieh/papers/rieh_IBTheory.pdf.

• - Rieh, Soo Young & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307–364.

• - Riegelman, Richard K. (2004). Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to Read the Medical Evidence. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

• - Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Information Research, 12(3) paper 319. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20180416064908/http://www.informationr.net/ir///12-3/paper319.html.

• - Slife, Brent D. & Williams, R. N. (1995). What's behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ("A Consumers Guide to the Behavioral Sciences").

• - Taylor, John (1991). War photography; realism in the British press. London: Routledge.

• - Thurén, Torsten. (1997). Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

• - Walton, Douglas (1998). Fallacies. IN: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, London: Routledge.

• - Webb, E J; Campbell, D T; Schwartz, R D & Sechrest, L (2000). Unobtrusive measures; revised edition. Sage Publications Inc.

• - Wilkinson, G.L., Bennett, L.T., & Oliver, K.M. (1997). Evaluation criteria and indicators of quality for Internet resources. Educational Technology, 37(3), 52–59.

• - Wilson, Patrick (1983). Second-Hand Knowledge. An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

• - The Source Compass: Source Criticism Archived June 2, 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

• - The History Sourcebook: The Need for Source Criticism.

The following principles are cited from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997) written by historians:.

• - Human sources can be relics (for example, a fingerprint) or narrative (for example, a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

• - A given source can be falsified or corrupted; Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.

• - The closer a source is to the event it purports to describe, the more it can be trusted to give an accurate description of what really happened.

• - A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

• - If several independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message increases considerably.

• - The bias of a source is its motivation to provide some type of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or complemented by opposing motivations.

• - If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message increases.

We can add the following principles:

• - Knowledge of source criticism cannot replace knowledge of the subject:.

• - The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions asked.

The following questions are often good to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988):.

1. • How was the source located?

2. • What type of source is it?

3. • Who is the author and what are the author's qualifications in relation to the topic being discussed?

4. • When was the information published?

5. • In which country was it published?

6. • What is the editor's reputation?

7. • Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias?

For literary sources we could add complementary criteria:

1. • Does the source contain a bibliography?

2. • Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited?

3. • How does the article/book compare to similar articles/books?

How general are the principles of source criticism? Some principles are universal, other principles are specific to certain types of information sources. One may wonder whether the principles of source criticism are unique to the humanities. There is no consensus on the similarities and differences between the natural sciences and the humanities. Logical positivism asserted that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism stated that positivism is the basis of the sciences, while hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, according to, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands science and the humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstandings and paradigms. Hermeneutics is, therefore, a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and pre-understanding, while the sources of the natural sciences are not. The humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic".

Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific articles) that are products of prior understanding (and, for example, academic fraud).

Epistemology

Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and therefore the most general theories about how to evaluate sources of information. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without a basis in experience are not considered valid. Rationalism gives low priority to sources based on observations. For observations to be meaningful, they must be understood by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and good definition that focuses on evaluating the sources of information from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates sources of information based on their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluates sources based on how their values ​​and usefulness achieve certain results. Pragmatism is skeptical about asserted neutral sources of information.

The evaluation of knowledge or sources of information cannot be more certain than the construction of knowledge. If we accept the principle of fallibilism, we also have to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is closely related to scientific methods.

The presence of argument fallacies in sources is another type of philosophical criteria for evaluating sources. The flaws are presented by Walton (1998). Fallacies include the "ad hominem fallacy" (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the "straw man fallacy" (when an advocate misrepresents another person's position to make it seem less plausible than it really is, in order to more easily criticize or refute it.) See also fallacy.

Research methodology

Research methods are methods used to produce academic knowledge. Methods that are relevant to producing knowledge are also relevant to evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that inverts the methodology and uses it to evaluate the knowledge produced is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998).

science studies

Studies of quality assessment processes, such as peer review, book reviews, and normative criteria used in the evaluation of scientific and academic research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct.

Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, beginning with the author himself (Watson), general textbook authors, behavioral therapists, and a leading learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes of these distortions and analyzes Albert's study as an example of myth-making in the history of psychology. Studies of this type can be considered a special type of reception history (how Watson's article was received). It can also be considered as a type of critical history (as opposed to the ceremonial history of psychology, cf. Harris, 1980). Such studies are important for source criticism by revealing the bias introduced by referring to classical studies.

Textual criticism

Textual criticism (or broader: text philology) is part of philology, which is not only dedicated to the study of texts, but also edits and produces "scientific editions", "scholarly editions", "standard editions", "historical editions", "reliable editions", "reliable texts", "text editions" or "critical editions", which are editions in which careful scholarship has been employed to ensure that the information contained is as close to the original intentions of the author/composer as possible. (and which allows the user to compare and judge changes in editions published under the influence of the author/composer). The relationship between these types of works and the concept "source criticism" is evident in Danish, where they can be called "kildekritisk udgave" (directly translated as "source critical edition").

In other words, most editions of a given work are supposed to be full of noise and errors provided by the editors, so it is important to produce "scholarly editions." The work provided by text philology is an important part of source criticism in the humanities.

• - Paleography.

• - Textual criticism.

• - Greater criticism.

• - Historical editions (music)&action=edit&redlink=1 "Historical editions (music) (not yet written)").

• - Urtext editing.

Complete works and monumental editions.

Psychology

The study of eyewitness testimony is an important field of study used, among other purposes, to evaluate testimony in court. The basics of eyewitness fallibility include factors such as poor vision conditions, brief exposure, and stress. More subtle factors such as personal expectations, prejudices and stereotypes can intervene to create erroneous reports. Loftus (1996) discusses all of these factors and also shows that eyewitness memory is chronically inaccurate in surprising ways. An ingenious series of experiments reveals that memory can be radically altered by the way an eyewitness is questioned after the fact. New memories can be implanted and old ones unconsciously altered during interrogation.

Anderson (1978) and Anderson & Pichert (1977) reported an elegant experiment demonstrating how changing perspective affected people's ability to remember information that could not be remembered from another perspective.

In psychoanalysis, the concept of defense mechanism is important and can be considered a contribution to the theory of source criticism because it explains psychological mechanisms, which distort the reliability of human information sources.

Library and information sciences (LIS)

In library and information science (LIS) schools, sources are critiqued as part of the growing field of information literacy. Topics of study, such as relevance"), quality indicators of documents, types of documents and their qualities (e.g. academic editions), and related topics are studied in LIS and are relevant for source reviews. Bibliometrics is often used to find the most influential journal, authors, countries and institutions. The study of book reviews") and its role in book evaluation should also be mentioned.

One could argue that library and information education should provide source criticism at least at the same level as taught in upper secondary school (Gudmundsson, 2007).

The checklist approach has often been used in libraries and information sciences.[3] Meola (2004) provides a critique of this approach: "Reviewing the checklist".

Libraries sometimes provide advice on how their users can evaluate sources.[4][5]​.

The Library of Congress has a "Teaching with Primary Sources" (TPS) program.[6]​.

Ethics

Source criticism is also about ethical behavior and culture. This is a free press and an open society, including sources of information protection from persecution (cf., Whistleblower).

Photos

Photos are often manipulated during wars and for political purposes. A well-known example is Joseph Stalin's manipulation of a May 5, 1920 photograph in which Stalin's predecessor Lenin gave a speech to Soviet troops attended by Leon Trotsky. Stalin had later retouched Trotsky from this photograph. (cf. King, 1997). A recent example is reported by Healy (2008) about North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.[7]​.

Internet sources

Much interest in evaluating Internet sources (such as Wikipedia) is reflected in the academic literature in library and information science and other fields. Mintz (2002) is an edited volume on this topic. Examples of literature examining Internet sources include Chesney (2006), Fritch & Cromwell (2001), Leth & Thurén (2000), and Wilkinson, Bennett, and Oliver (1997).

Archeology and history

"In history, the term historical method was first introduced systematically in the 16th century by Jean Bodin in his treatise on source criticism, Methodus ad facilem historiarium cognitionem (1566). Characteristically, Bodin's treatise sought to set out the ways in which reliable knowledge of the past could be established by checking sources against each other and by assessing the reliability of the information they convey, relating them to the interests involved." (Lorenz, 2001, p. 6870).

As written above, modern source criticism in history is closely related to the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795 – 1886), who influenced historical methods on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, although in quite different ways. American history developed in a more empiricist and anti-philosophical manner (cf., Novick, 1988).

Two of the best-known childhood rule books in history are Bernheim (1889) and Langlois and Seignobos (1898). These books provided a seven-step procedure (here cited from Howell & Prevenier, 2001, p. 70-71):.

1. • If all sources agree on an event, historians can consider the event proven.

2. • However, the majority does not govern; Even if most sources relate the events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.

3. • The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to external authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible to confirm the entire text.

4. • When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with more "authority", that is, the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.

5. • In general, the eyes are preferred, especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what occurred and, more specifically, when dealing with facts known to most contemporaries.

6. • If two independently created sources agree on an issue, the reliability of each is measurably improved.

7. • When two sources disagree (and there are no other means of evaluation), then historians take the source that seems to agree best with common sense.

Gudmundsson (2007, p. 38) writes: "Source criticism should not totally dominate later courses. Other important perspectives, for example philosophy of history/view of history, should not suffer from being neglected." This quote makes a distinction between source criticism on the one hand and historical philosophy on the other. However, different views of history and different specific theories about the field being studied can have important consequences for how sources are selected, interpreted, and used. Feminist scholars can, for example, select sources made by women and can interpret sources from a feminist perspective. Epistemology should therefore be considered part of source criticism. It is in particular related to "trend analysis".

In archaeology, radiocarbon dating is an important technique for establishing the age of information sources. Methods of this type were ideal when history was established as a scientific discipline and as a profession based on "scientific" principles in the latter part of the 1880s (although radiocarbon dating is a more recent example of such methods). The empiricist movement in history brought both "source criticism" as a research method and also in many countries large-scale publishing efforts to make valid editions of "source materials" such as important letters and official documents (e.g. facsimiles or transcriptions "Transcription (linguistics)")).

Historiography and the historical method include the study of the reliability of the sources used, in terms of, for example, authorship, credibility of the author, and authenticity or corruption of the text.

Bible studies

Source criticism, as used in biblical criticism), refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author and/or editor of the final text. The term "literary criticism" is occasionally used synonymously.

Biblical source criticism originated in the century with the work of Jean Astruc, who adapted methods already developed for the investigation of the texts of classical antiquity (the Iliad in particular) to his own investigation into the sources of the book of Genesis. It was later developed considerably by German scholars in what became known as "Higher Criticism", a term no longer widely used. The ultimate goal of these scholars was to reconstruct the history of the biblical text, as well as the religious history of ancient Israel.

Related to source criticism is redaction criticism, which seeks to determine how and why the redactor (editor) put the sources together in the same way he did. Also related is form criticism and the history of tradition, which seeks to reconstruct the oral prehistory behind the identified written sources.

Journalism

Journalists often work under severe time pressure and have access to only a limited number of sources of information, such as news agencies, people who may be interviewed, newspapers, magazines, etc. The possibility of journalists to carry out serious source criticism is therefore limited compared to, for example, the possibilities of historians.

Legal Studies

The most important legal sources are created by parliaments, governments, courts and legal researchers. They can be written or informal and based on established practices. Views on the quality of sources differ among legal philosophies: legal positivism is the view that the text of the law should be considered in isolation, while legal realism, (legal) interpretivism&action=edit&redlink=1 "(legal) interpretivism (not yet drafted"), critical legal studies"), and feminist legal criticism interpret the law more broadly.

• - Bias.

• - Deception.

• - Exegesis.

• - Alerter.

• - American Library Association (1994) Evaluating Information: A Basic Checklist. Brochure. American Library Association.

• - Anderson, Richard C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. IN: NATO International Conference on Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, 1977, Amsterdam: Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Ed. by A. M. Lesgold, J. W. Pellegrino, S. D. Fokkema & R. Glaser. New York: Plenum Press (pp. 67–82).

• - Anderson, Richard C. & Pichert, J. W. (1977). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift of perspective. Urbana, Il: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading, April. 1977. (Technical Report 41). Available in full-text from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/31/83/58.pdf.

• - Bazerman, Charles (1995). The Informed Writer: Using Sources in the Disciplines. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin.

• - Bee, Ronald E. (1983). Statistics and Source Criticism. Vetus Testamentum, Volume 33, Number 4, 483–488.

• - Beecher-Monas, Erica (2007). Evaluating scientific evidence: an interdisciplinary framework for intellectual due process. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

• - Bernheim, Ernst (1889). Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie [Guidebook for Historical Method and the Philosophy of History]. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

• - Brundage, Anthony (2007). Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th Ed. Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. (3rd edition, 1989 cited in text above).

• - Chesney, T. (2006). An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility. First Monday, 11(11), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html Archived November 24, 2012 at the Wayback Machine.

• - Encyclopædia Britannica (2006). Fatally Flawed. Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Nature's response March 23, 2006: http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf.

• - Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1988) Bibliographic Instruction and Critical Thinking: The Contribution of the Annotated Bibliography. Research Quarterly, Vol. 28, Winter, p. 195-202.

• - Engeldinger, Eugene A. (1998) Technology Infrastructure and Information Literacy. Library Philosophy and Practice Vol. 1, No. 1.

• - Fritch, J. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (2001). Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 499–507.

• - Gerhart, Susan L. (2004). Do Web search engines suppress controversy? Archived February 5, 2013 at the Wayback Machine. First Monday 9(1).

• - Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900–901. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html Supplementary information: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/extref/438900a-s1.doc.

• - Gudmundsson, David (2007). När kritiska elever är målet. Att undervisa and källkritik for gymnasiet. [When the Goal is Critical Students. Teaching Source Criticism in Upper Secondary School]. Malmö, Sweden: Malmö högskola. Full text.

• - Hardtwig, W. (2001). Ranke, Leopold von (1795–1886). IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (12738–12741).

• - Harris, Ben (1979). Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 2, pp. 151–160. link to full text.

• - Harris, Ben (1980). Ceremonial versus critical history of psychology. American Psychologist, 35(2), 218–219. (Note).

• - Healy, Jack (2008). Was the Dear Leader Photoshopped In? November 7, 2008, 2:57 p.m. m. [President Kim Jong Il, North Korea]. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/was-the-dear-leader-photoshopped-in/?scp=7&sq=Kim%20Jong-il&st=cse.

• - Hjørland, Birger (2008). Source criticism. In: Epistemological Lifeboat. Ed. by Birger Hjørland & Jeppe Nicolaisen.

• - Howell, Martha & Prevenier, Walter (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8560-6.

• - Katzer, Jeffrey; Cook, Kenneth H. & Crouch, Wayne W. (1998). Evaluating Information: A Guide for Users of Social Science Research. 4th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

• - King, David (1997) The Commissar Vanishes: the falsification of photographs and art in Stalin's Russia. Metropolitan Books, New York.

• - Langlois, Charles-Victor & Seignobos, Charles (1898). Introduction aux études historiques [Introduction to the Study of History]. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Full text. Introduction to the Study of History Full text.

• - Leth, Göran & Thurén, Torsten (2000). Källkritik för internet. Stockholm: Styrelsen för Psykologiskt Försvar. (Hentet 2007-11-30).

• - Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Revised edition Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. (Original edition: 1979).

• - Lorenz, C. (2001). History: Theories and Methods. IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Pp. 6869–6876).

• - Mathewson, Daniel B. (2002). A critical binary: Source criticism and deconstructive criticism. Journal for the study of the Old Testament no98, pp. 3–28. Abstract: When classifying the array of interpretive methods currently available, biblical critics regularly distinguish between historical-critical methods, on the one hand, and literary critical methods, on the other. Frequently, methods on one side of the divide are said to be antagonistic to certain methods on the other. This article examines two such presumed antagonistic methods, source criticism and deconstructive criticism, and argues that they are not, in fact, antagonistic, but similar: both are postmodern movements, and both share an interpretive methodology (insofar as it is correct to speak of a deconstructive methodology). This argument is illustrated with a source-critical and a deconstructive reading of Exodus 14.

• - Mattus, Maria (2007). Finding Credible Information: A Challenge to Students Writing Academic Essays. Human IT 9(2), 1–28. Hentet 2007-09-04 fra: http://www.hb.se/bhs/ith/2-9/mm.pdf Archived July 28, 2021 at the Wayback Machine.

• - Meola, M (2004). Chucking the checklist: A contextual approach to teaching undergraduates web-site evaluation. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 331-344. Downloaded 2008-10-23 from: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v004/4.3meola.pdf.

• - Mintz, Anne P. (ed.). (2002). Web of disappointment. Misinformation on the Internet. Medford, NJ: Information Today.

• - Müller, Philipp (2009). Understanding history: Hermeneutics and source-criticism in historical scholarship. IN: Dobson, Miriam & Ziemann, Benjamin (eds): Reading primary sources. The interpretation of texts from nineteenth and twentieth-century history. London: Routledge (pp. 21–36).

• - Olden-Jørgensen, Sebastian (2001). Til Kilderne: Introduktion til Historisk Kildekritik (in Danish). [To the sources: Introduction to historical source criticism]. København: Gads Forlag. ISBN 978-87-12-03778-1.

• - Reinfandt, Christohp (2009). Reading texts after the linguistic tturn: approaches from literary studies and their implementation. IN: Dobson, Miriam & Ziemann, Benjamin (eds): Reading primary sources. The interpretation of texts from nineteenth and twentieth-century history. London: Routledge (pp. 37–54).

• - Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145–161. https://web.archive.org/web/20090731152623/http://www.si.umich.edu/rieh/papers/rieh_jasist2002.pdf.

• - Rieh, S. Y. (2005). Cognitive authority. I: K. E. Fisher, S. Erdelez, & E. F. McKechnie (Eds.), Theories of information behavior: A researchers' guide . Medford, NJ: Information Today (pp. 83–87). https://web.archive.org/web/20080512170752/http://newweb2.si.umich.edu/rieh/papers/rieh_IBTheory.pdf.

• - Rieh, Soo Young & Danielson, David R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307–364.

• - Riegelman, Richard K. (2004). Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to Read the Medical Evidence. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

• - Savolainen, R. (2007). Media credibility and cognitive authority. The case of seeking orienting information. Information Research, 12(3) paper 319. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20180416064908/http://www.informationr.net/ir///12-3/paper319.html.

• - Slife, Brent D. & Williams, R. N. (1995). What's behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ("A Consumers Guide to the Behavioral Sciences").

• - Taylor, John (1991). War photography; realism in the British press. London: Routledge.

• - Thurén, Torsten. (1997). Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

• - Walton, Douglas (1998). Fallacies. IN: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, London: Routledge.

• - Webb, E J; Campbell, D T; Schwartz, R D & Sechrest, L (2000). Unobtrusive measures; revised edition. Sage Publications Inc.

• - Wilkinson, G.L., Bennett, L.T., & Oliver, K.M. (1997). Evaluation criteria and indicators of quality for Internet resources. Educational Technology, 37(3), 52–59.

• - Wilson, Patrick (1983). Second-Hand Knowledge. An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.

• - The Source Compass: Source Criticism Archived June 2, 2020 at the Wayback Machine.

• - The History Sourcebook: The Need for Source Criticism.