Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Internet has democratized access to information but in doing so has opened the floodgates to misinformation, fake news, and rank propaganda masquerading as dispassionate analysis.
“The Internet has democratized access to information but in doing so has opened the floodgates to misinformation, fake news, and rank propaganda masquerading as dispassionate analysis.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
Fact checkers had a strong understanding of the structures underlying how information is served online, including knowledge of how search results are optimized and presented.
“They additionally had a strong understanding of the structures underlying how information is served online, including knowledge of how search results are optimized and presented.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
Historians and students used trust metrics that could be easily gamed or manipulated (e.g., look of a website, domain names, logos), whereas professional fact checkers left the website to quickly research its validity.
“They found that while historians and students used trust metrics that could be easily gamed or manipulated (e.g., look of a website, domain names, logos), professional fact checkers would leave the website to quickly research its validity.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
Technologies and media systems evolve quickly and often in ways opaque to the public.
“given that technologies and media systems evolve quickly and often in ways opaque to the public”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew's (2017)
Wineburg and McGrew argue that checklists for evaluating websites, often used in media literacy education, are outdated and actually impair determinations of credibility, are time-consuming and can be easily gamed.
“Wineburg and McGrew argue that checklists for evaluating websites, often used in media literacy education, are outdated and actually impair determinations of credibility, they are time-consuming and can be easily gamed.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
Professional fact checkers more correctly identified trustworthy political information than PhD historians and undergraduates, and in a fraction of the time.
“Professional fact checkers more correctly identified trustworthy political information in a fraction of the time of PhD historians and undergraduates.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
Fact checkers initially spent minimal time on a page, instead leaving it to evaluate its credibility.
“Fact checkers initially spent minimal time on a page, instead leaving it to evaluate its credibility.”
From The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy (2018) · cites this paper as Wineburg and McGrew (2017)
When students looked for outside sources, they favored the top search results from search engines and clicked on higher-ranked results, even if those results were less credible or relevant.
“For instance, when students looked for outside sources, they favored the top search results from search engines and clicked on higher-ranked results, even if those results were less credible or relevant (Bhatt & Mackenzie, 2019;Wineburg & McGrew, 2017).”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Wineburg & McGrew, 2017
Students' research habits made them vulnerable to algorithmic ranking and filtering.
“Other studies have suggested that students' research habits made them vulnerable to algorithmic ranking and filtering.”
From Expanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy (2023) · cites this paper as Wineburg & McGrew, 2017
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x · Cited by 715 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Promises, Challenges, and Futures of Media Literacy
Bulger, M., & Davison, P. (2018) · Journal of Media Literacy Education · doi:10.23860/jmle-2018-10-1-1 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenanigans
Zannettou, S., Sirivianos, M., Blackburn, J., & Kourtellis, N. (2019) · Journal of Data and Information Quality · doi:10.1145/3309699 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Polizzi, G. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103859 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Students’ Civic Online Reasoning: A National Portrait
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., Rapaport, A., Carle, J., Garland, M., & Saavedra, A. (2021) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x211017495 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Self-citationEdgerly, S., Mourão, R. R., Thorson, E., & Tham, S. M. (2020) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699019864680 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Jahanbakhsh, F., Zhang, A. X., Berinsky, A. J., Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G., & Karger, D. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449092 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility
Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019) · Nordicom Review · doi:10.2478/nor-2019-0002 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course.
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-56 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citationExpanding on the Frames: Making a Case for Algorithmic Literacy
Loyola Marymount University, & Archambault, S. (2023) · Communications in Information Literacy · doi:10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
SIFT-ing Through Misinformation: Reflection Notebooks to Teach Critical Digital Literacy
Spracklin, E., & Espina, C. R. (2025) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001760 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wineburg, Sam
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2761681614
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- lateral reading, web credibility, information evaluation, misinformation, fact-checking, source reliability, domain names, logos, reading practices, information literacy, historians, undergraduate students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review