The DOI matches its Crossref record.
To navigate the dangers of the web, you need critical thinking – but also critical ignoring
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Source-based approaches to online reasoning can be particularly effective because students need to know where to strategically place their attention in a digital information landscape with virtually infinite sources that vary in quality.
“Source-based approaches to online reasoning can be particularly effective because in a digital information landscape with virtually infinite sources that vary in quality, students will need to know where to strategically place their attention (Kozyreva et al., 2023;Wineburg, 2021).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Wineburg, 2021
Teaching students how to evaluate online sources of scientific information in the classroom might support students in employing critical ignoring, where an individual ignores some information or sources to reduce possible exposure to false and/or low-quality information.
“By teaching students how to evaluate online sources of scientific information in the classroom, science educators might support students in employing critical ignoring, where an individual ignores some information (or sources) to reduce possible exposure to false and/or low-quality information (Kozyreva et al., 2023;Wineburg, 2021).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Wineburg, 2021
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1186/s41235-021-00291-4 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Wineburg, S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wineburg, Sam
- ORCID
- Wineburg, Sam
- Publisher
- The Conversation Media Group Ltd
- Published
- 2021-05-14
- OpenAlex
- W4413571970
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Digital Media and Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Critical Thinking Development
- Keywords
- critical thinking, online safety, online risks, information evaluation, digital literacy
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
