Check before you share
Information travels fast, and a confident tone can make a weak claim feel solid. Checking does not require special equipment. It means pausing to look at the source, the date, the exact claim and whether anyone else supports it, and then choosing whether to share, check further or hold back.
Look at four things in turn: who is saying it, when it was said, what exactly is claimed, and whether independent sources agree. Then decide whether to share, check more, or hold.
Source and date
Begin with who is speaking. Does the account name a person or an organisation, and can you find out what they do? An account with a catchy name and no description gives you very little to trust. A source with relevant expertise, a track record and a way to be contacted gives you more, though it is still not proof.
Then check the date. Old material is often shared again as though it were new, and facts can change. In our fictional post there is no date at all, which means you cannot tell whether the claim is recent, outdated, or recycled. Missing information is itself useful evidence.
See the idea
in a real situation.
The example below is entirely fictional. A social media post from an account called 'BrainBoostDaily' reads: 'New study PROVES you only need 10 minutes of this one trick to learn ANYTHING. Scientists are stunned. Share with everyone who needs this!' The post has no link, a picture of a smiling person in a lab coat, and thousands of reactions. Nothing in it refers to a real study.
A reader sees the BrainBoostDaily post and thinks, 'That sounds useful, and so many people have reacted.' She is about to forward it to her study group.
Source: unclear. The account gives no name, qualifications or contact details.
Date: none shown, so I cannot tell if it is current.
Claim: one trick lets anyone learn anything in ten minutes. That is very broad, and it names no study.
Corroboration: I searched for the claim in plain words and found no clear, independent source that describes it.
Decision: HOLD. I will not forward it. If a named study appears, I will read what it actually tested before deciding again.
↗Taking each of the four checks in order gives a reason for the decision, not just a feeling of doubt.
↗Reducing the claim to its plain meaning shows how sweeping it is compared with how little evidence is offered.
↗Choosing 'hold' with a condition for changing her mind keeps the reader open without sharing something unsupported.
What is actually claimed
Read the claim slowly and strip away the emotional words. 'Proves', 'anything', 'stunned' and 'everyone' are signals of strong language. Underneath, the post claims that one technique works for all kinds of learning, in ten minutes, for everyone. That is a very broad statement. Real findings tend to be narrower, such as a specific group, a specific task and a modest difference.
Notice also what is missing. The post names no study, no authors, no journal and no link. A claim that says 'a study proves' but gives you nothing to look up has asked you to trust it without any way to check. A universal shortcut is also a reason for extra caution, because learning varies between people and subjects.
Corroboration and a decision
Corroboration means finding out whether other independent sources support the claim. Search for the claim in your own words and see whether reliable, separate sources report it, and whether they describe it the same way. Several pages that all copy the same original post are not independent.
Finish with a choice. Share if the source is clear, the claim is specific and others support it. Check further if some parts are promising but unconfirmed. Hold if the source is unclear, the claim is sweeping and nothing supports it. Holding is not rudeness. It simply means you have not yet seen enough to pass it on.
Make it useful
in your own context.
Invent a short fictional post or headline that makes a bold claim, such as a miracle diet or a one-minute memory trick. Do not use a real person or organisation.
- Write down the source, date and exact claim, noting anything that is missing.
- Decide what kind of independent source would support the claim, and describe what you would look for.
- Choose share, check or hold, and write two sentences explaining the choice.
A pause before sharing
Make the example your own. Use fictional or non-sensitive details while you practise.
Your practice stays on this page. Copy or download it to keep a useful next step; the website does not submit your notes.
Which of the four checks would you most often skip when you are in a hurry, and what could you do to make it automatic?
Before you share anything next time, spend one minute on source, date, claim and corroboration, and write down whether your choice is share, check or hold.
Keep the question open until the evidence fits.
Refine your search for an original source, or test a smaller explanation of a practical problem.