Source Credibility
A source is not credible because it looks professional. It is credible because you can trace who made it, what evidence it uses, and whether other trustworthy sources agree.
Success criteria
- I can apply five tests to a sustainability source.
- I can distinguish a primary source from a summary or a campaign page.
- I can use lateral reading to check a claim beyond the page that makes it.
- I can record a source accurately so a reader can find it.
The five tests
1. Authority
Who made it? What qualifications or institutional responsibility do they have? Is the author named, or only a logo?
2. Currency
When was it published or updated? Does the date matter for this claim? Old data can still be useful if you say it is old.
3. Evidence
Does it show its method, sample, definitions, and raw data? Or does it only give confident sentences and dramatic numbers?
4. Bias and purpose
Why was this made? To inform, sell, campaign, entertain, or persuade? Bias does not automatically make a source useless, but you must name it.
5. Corroboration
Do independent sources agree? If not, why? Two websites quoting the same press release are not independent confirmation.
6. Accessibility
Can a reader reach the source? A broken link or a screenshot with no origin is not good enough for an assessment.
Source types
| Source | Usually strong for | Questions to ask |
|---|---|---|
| Government statistics | Population, emissions, waste, energy, water, and land use | Which year? Which definition? Which geographic area? |
| Peer-reviewed research | Testing a cause, measuring an impact, reviewing evidence | What is the sample? Was it replicated? Who funded it? |
| University or museum explainer | Background concepts and expert synthesis | Is it current? Does it link to the research? |
| NGO report | Local projects, lived experience, policy analysis | What is the campaign goal? Is the evidence original? |
| Industry report | Operational data and technical detail | What is the commercial interest? Are boundaries stated? |
| News article | Recent events and expert comment | Does it link to the original study or report? |
| Documentary | Framing an issue and showing lived experience | Whose voices are included? What is simplified or omitted? |
| Social media post | Finding a lead or a public reaction | Can you trace the claim to an original source? |
| AI summary | Nothing, until verified | What are the sources? Can you open them? AI can invent citations. |
Primary, secondary, and recycled claims
| Type | Example | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | A council's waste audit data or an ABS dataset | Use the figure directly, with method and date. |
| Secondary | A news article summarising the audit | Use it to find the audit, then cite the audit. |
| Recycled | A social post quoting a blog quoting the article | Do not cite it. Trace the claim back to the original. |
Lateral reading
Do not stay on one page and judge its design. Open new tabs and read about the source.
- Open a new tab and search the organisation's name plus "funding" or "about".
- Search the exact statistic in quotation marks.
- Find the original report, dataset, or study.
- Check whether independent sources report the same figure with the same definition.
- Look for corrections, updates, or criticisms.
Documentaries are arguments
A documentary is a secondary source and a constructed text. It selects footage, edits interviews, uses music, and arranges evidence to persuade. That does not make it worthless. It means you must ask:
- Who is the filmmaker, and what is the stated purpose?
- Whose voices are centred, and whose are missing?
- Are claims attributed to named experts or to anonymous narration?
- Does it show uncertainty, trade-offs, or only a simple villain?
- Does it offer solutions with evidence, or only alarm?
- What do independent sources say about the same issue?
Source card
Title:
Date:
URL or report number:
Type: government / research / NGO / industry / news / other
Key claim or data:
Why it is credible for this purpose:
Limitations or bias:
Trust checklist
- I can name the author or institution.
- I know when it was published or updated.
- I can see the method, sample, or definitions.
- I can explain the purpose and any bias.
- I have checked the claim in at least one independent source.
- I can link to the original, not just a screenshot.
- I am not citing an AI summary as a source.
Useful Australian starting points: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Bureau of Meteorology; CSIRO; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; Australian Energy Market Operator; state environment and waste agencies; university research centres. Always check the date and definition.
Assessment link
The assessment rewards accurate information and ideas linked to the documentary. A strong source line on your infographic might read: "Sources: ABS (2025); DCCEEW (2024); school waste audit (2026)." The full details belong in your planning.