Module One – What Counts as a Source?

In an age where anyone can upload a video, write a blog post, or go viral with a claim, it’s easy to confuse confidence for credibility.

But not all “sources” are created equal — and knowing how to tell the difference is the first step toward doing real, meaningful research.

🧠 So What Exactly Is a Source?

A source is any material that provides evidence for a claim.

That sounds simple, but whether that evidence is strong, weak, or misleading depends on a few key things:

• How it was gathered

• Who produced it

• Whether it can be verified independently

Sources aren’t automatically good or bad just because someone says so.
You have to look at where the information actually comes from — and whether it can stand up to scrutiny.

🔎 Quick Examples:

✅ A scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal → Strong source.

❌ A screenshot of a tweet citing “a recent study” (with no link) → Not a real source.

❌ A YouTuber doing a long rant with no actual citations → Not a source.

✅ A .gov or .edu page explaining official research or public health information → Reliable secondary source.

📚 But Why Does This Matter?

Peer-Reviewed Studies:
When research is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it means other experts in the same field reviewed, criticized, and validated the methods and conclusions before it ever got published.
It doesn’t guarantee perfection — but it acts like a basic quality filter to catch obvious mistakes, exaggerations, or bias.

Random Screenshots:
Anyone can take a screenshot.
Without a link to the original study, full context, or full methods, you’re taking someone’s word for it — not actually checking the source yourself.
(And a lot of bad information starts exactly this way.)

YouTubers, TikTokers, and Rant Accounts:
Being loud, angry, or passionate doesn’t make someone a good researcher.
If there’s no clear citation, no link to original material, and no way for you to double-check the claims, then it’s entertainment, not research.

Government and Educational (.gov and .edu) Sites:
While not perfect, these tend to be better starting points because they are tied to institutions that are required to meet certain standards.

• .gov sites are public record and subject to oversight

• .edu sites often summarize real academic research for wider audiences

Are they flawless? No. But compared to random blogs or influencers, they have a lot more quality control.

🧩 Primary vs. Secondary Sources

It’s also important to know the difference:

• Primary Source:
  The original study, dataset, or firsthand account.

• Secondary Source:
  An article, summary, or video explaining what the primary source said.

Both can be useful — but the closer you are to the primary source, the less chance of something being lost, twisted, or “spun.”

If someone is telling you “what the study found,” but you never see the study yourself?
You’re trusting their interpretation — not doing your own research.

Whenever possible → go find the original.

🚩 Real Sources Leave Trails

A real, credible source lets you trace a claim back to the beginning.

You should be able to:

• Click a link

• See the full study

• Read the full quote

• Look at the actual data

If you can’t — if the trail goes cold at a dead-end tweet, a screenshot, or a blog post with no links — that’s your first major red flag.

💬 You Don’t Need a PhD to Think Critically

You don’t need special degrees or insider connections to do good research.
But you do need to ask the right first question every time you see a bold claim:

“Where did this come from?”

If you make that one question a habit, you’ll already be ahead of most people online — and way harder to fool.