The word credible comes from the word creed, which means "belief." What you know about historical context and types of sources can help you figure out if a source is credible--if the information in the source should be believed. Click through the table below to see what questions you should ask yourself as you analyze a source.
| Identify the Source Type. | Is it a primary source from someone with direct experience of an event, or a secondary source written years later?
Remember that primary sources usually include more facts and less interpretation. They are often more reliable than secondary sources, but may be distorted by a limited or mistaken perspective. Secondary sources are great for putting together a more general story about history, but they can be influenced by the writer's opinions or motivations for telling the story. |
| Identify the Author and Audience. | Who created the source? Who is the author writing for or trying to convince? Is he or she credible? Is there evidence of a personal agenda?
Remember how Ramesses II of Egypt wanted to make his near-defeat look like a stunning victory. This is an example of a source distorting facts to make someone (himself) look better. If someone has a strong personal interest in telling their version of a story, you may want to look twice at their claims. |
| Compare the Source to Other Accounts. | Are other sources from the same time period in agreement about what happened? Does the evidence in this source match up with other accounts of the event?
If you find a source about an event that is backed up by other eyewitness accounts, or by archeological, geographical, and anthropological evidence, it's most likely true. |
Let's try this together. For each of these examples, choose the most obvious problem with the believability of the source.
A secondary source doubts that the moon landing ever took place, claiming that all the other evidence, eyewitness accounts, photos, and documents are an elaborate conspiracy.
- The context of the source--who said it, when and where the speaker lived--is unclear.
- The author of the source is someone who is known to change or distort the facts.
- The source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts of the event.
This source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts because there are many types of very strong evidence showing that the moon landings really happened.
This source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts because there are many types of very strong evidence showing that the moon landings really happened.
This source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts because there are many types of very strong evidence showing that the moon landings really happened.
A primary source describes a bright light in the sky as the god Apollo driving his chariot through the night.
- The context of the source--who said it, when and where the speaker lived--is unclear.
- The author of the source is someone who is known to change or distort the facts.
- The source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts of the event.
We don't know who described the event in this way or when the source lived. While it's probably true that the witness saw something light up the sky, his personal frame of reference may have led him to the wrong conclusion about what caused the event.
We don't know who described the event in this way or when the source lived. While it's probably true that the witness saw something light up the sky, his personal frame of reference may have led him to the wrong conclusion about what caused the event.
We don't know who described the event in this way or when the source lived. While it's probably true that the witness saw something light up the sky, his personal frame of reference may have led him to the wrong conclusion about what caused the event.
In a fitness magazine, an author claims to have found a substance that increases physical endurance by 75 percent, and he will sell it to anyone who contacts him--just $59.99 for a three-month supply.
- The context of the source--who said it, when and where the speaker lived--is unclear.
- The author of the source is someone who is known to change or distort the facts.
- The source doesn't fit with other accepted accounts of the event.
The author of this source will make a lot of money if people believe the article's claim. Therefore, we should be suspicious of the "facts" it presents.
The author of this source will make a lot of money if people believe the article's claim. Therefore, we should be suspicious of the "facts" it presents.
The author of this source will make a lot of money if people believe the article's claim. Therefore, we should be suspicious of the "facts" it presents.
Summary
Questions answered correctly:
Questions answered incorrectly:
