Cited by 198Misinformation and Its ImpactsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information

Open access
Wineburg, Sam, McGrew, Sarah·2017·SSRN Electronic Journal

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.3048994

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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