How would you critique a source's credibility in informational texts?

• A. Check authority, accuracy, currency, objectivity, and corroboration with other sources
• B. Only consider the publisher's reputation
• C. Only rely on the most famous author
• D. Ignore conflicting information

Answer: (D)

Evaluating credibility in informational texts relies on a thoughtful check of five key qualities: authority, accuracy, currency, objectivity, and corroboration with other sources. Authority looks at who wrote or produced the piece—their credentials, expertise, and institutional ties. A source written by someone with relevant training or standing in the field is more trustworthy, especially when they transparently share their background. Accuracy focuses on the reliability of the information itself—are facts supported by evidence, data, and clear citations that can be verified? Currency matters because information can become outdated; newer sources are often essential in fast-moving topics. Objectivity examines potential biases or persuasive aims—does the piece present information fairly, acknowledge limitations, and distinguish fact from opinion? Corroboration involves checking the claims against other independent, credible sources to see if they align.

For example, a health article authored by a clinician who cites peer‑reviewed studies and explains the sources is more credible than a blog post with sensational claims and no references. When conflicting information appears, you weigh which source has stronger evidence, more current data, and transparent methods rather than ignoring the discrepancy.

Relying solely on a publisher’s reputation or a famous author, or ignoring conflicting information, doesn’t provide a solid basis for credibility because those signals don’t guarantee the quality or accuracy of the content itself.