It seems to me that teaching students to evaluate information is a matter of encouraging them to ask a few very basic questions.

1. Who is providing the information? Not just their name, but what is their authority? It may be their experience, qualifications, age, or something else. But why should you even bother to spend time on them? In other words, how did they come by the knowledge or opinion they are promulgating?

2. What are they saying? If, for example, a politician uses the word "percent", do they really mean percent, or percentage points? It usually makes a lot of difference.

And linked to this: have they been reported accurately, and if not, why not? (see point #3).

A good example of this is Edward Heath's promise, before the General Election in the UK in 1970, to cut prices at a stroke. What he actually said was "This would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices...". See http://www.uz.ac.zw/science/maths/zimaths/61/heath.htm for a fuller account of this.

I don't know if it's a function of age, or wisdom, or something else, but, being a reasonably intelligent person, I now take the view that if I read something (other than, obviously, something highly specialised) and I don't understand it, it's not my fault but because the writer hasn't made herself very clear. In which case I go to point #3 again.

3. What is their vested interest? I came across an article in which Lynne Truss, who has a thing about commas, asserted that primary schools in England don't pay enough attention to grammar. I don't know where she acquired this "knowledge", but she has written a new book for primary schools about using the comma. So, did she write the book in response to a perceived need, or did she make that assertion because she needs to sell her book? Maybe both. The point is: why did she say what she said, and where is her evidence (see #4)?

4. Who else is saying it? This is the birds of a feather principle: if a great-looking website is quoted by an extreme political sect, maybe we need to look a little closer at it. Also allied to this is: where are they getting their information from?

5. Are they walking the talk, ie practising what they preach? I have in front of me a library book called "How to publish your own book" -- published by a mainstream publisher. I borrowed it because I take the view that you never know what the author may have discovered that I haven't, but I'd have a lot more faith in the book if the author had followed his own recommendations. And because he hasn't, I'm left asking myself #7.

6. When did they say it? What was true last year may not be true today.

7. What are they NOT telling us?

8. Finally, so what? I take the view that a difference is only a difference if it makes a difference. Does what they're saying matter? And even if it does, does it matter more than something else that matters? And what can I do about it anyway? If I can't do anything, or the author hasn't suggested what I can do, why should I be wasting my time on it?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.