Verify sources and evidence in web content

Find the claims that need checking

Mark numbers, dates, prices, availability, qualifications, promised benefits, quotations and comparisons. For each, record the source, its date, the scope of the information and the person who can approve it. “Available everywhere” needs a different check from a general description of a working method.

Separate organisation-specific facts from public information. A team may confirm its normal response process, while a sector statistic needs its original source. If evidence is missing, describe a possibility as such or remove the claim.

• Sensitive claims marked in the draft.
• Source and owner associated with each claim.
• Wording adjusted when evidence is absent.

Return to the right source

For a technical rule, read the document defining it; for a supplier announcement, the original post; for an internal figure, the approved record. Commentary can clarify a topic, but the statement it attributes to the original source still needs checking.

Record publication and event dates when they differ. Check that the document addresses the product version, territory and period your page describes. Do not turn a limited observation into a general promise.

• Primary source found where possible.
• Version, period and territory match.
• Quotation or paraphrase reflects the document.

Connect evidence to published wording

In the editorial register, link the reference to the precise passage, date checked and content owner. Readers do not need the internal spreadsheet, but a specialised claim often benefits from a nearby source link. If you quote a client or show its logo, confirm permission and publication context.

For a case study, separate work delivered, observed measure and interpretation. A campaign or price change at the same time may prevent attributing a result to the website alone. The case-study guide gives a cautious structure.

A usable evidence record holds six elements: published claim, source passage, date of the fact, scope, owner and next review. Fictional example: a feature announced for one version is not a capability of every plan. Place that condition beside the feature description, then check the heading, excerpt and translations retain the same meaning.

For answers discoverable through search or an assistant, clearly name the organisation, service and relevant conditions. A citation supports a claim only when the linked page confirms that specific statement. Check the passage, not just the domain name. Google’s documentation distinguishes sound content practices from promises of inclusion in its AI answers.

• Claim register available to editors.
• Useful public links near the claim.
• Quotation and visual permissions checked.

Define review triggers

Set a next check for changing facts: prices, software versions, hours, people, figures and rules. Add immediate triggers such as a service change, a reported correction or an announcement from the primary publisher. A style review alone is insufficient.

When a fact becomes uncertain, correct the page and its translations, then log the change. If two pages answer the same question differently, designate a main editorial source and link or merge the others.

• Review date or event defined.
• Translations and related pages included in corrections.
• Short change history retained.

Decide in a concrete situation

Fictional example: several articles repeat one press release announcing a gain. Trace the origin and method; ten copies of a figure are not ten independent measurements, and a commercial statement needs qualification.

Link important claims to supporting documents, dates and limitations. Separate observation, hypothesis and promise; state uncertainty when evidence is missing rather than adding an irrelevant reference.

• Evaluate an AI tool before integrating it into a website

  Test an AI tool on real tasks, document errors, examine submitted data and organise human review.

Check a shared image

An old image is presented as a recent event. Look for its origin before repeating its caption or sharing it.

Compare the earliest publication found, place and date. Record established and undetermined points; many shares do not provide independent confirmation.

• Keep initial image and caption
• Find the original publication
• Compare date and context

• Check a shared image

  Proposed practical case

Read a science announcement

A headline presents a discovery as certain, while its picture might show a simulation. Look for what was actually observed.

Find mission, instrument, date and original document. Separate measurement, interpretation and illustration; leave open conclusions the source does not settle.

• Identify the original source
• Distinguish observation and simulation
• Keep stated limitations

• Read a science announcement

  Proposed practical case

When two sources disagree

Compare effective dates, scope and the exact subject. A launch announcement, current documentation and a news article may describe different states. Keep the relevant condition beside the claim and leave the question open if the competent source cannot resolve it.