990-16产品经理:How do you know what information sources to trust? 你怎么知道哪些信息来源是可信的？

You might come across hundreds of claims in a single day. Claims can come from a dizzying number of sources – friends and family, co-workers, journalists, politicians, businesses, news organisations and governments.
Claims can also be delivered to us in many ways – for example, via traditional media channels, from people we know on social media, or from family members at the dinner table.
Whenever a person shares information, they become an information source. It’s important to ask critical questions about an information source before we decide that it’s trustworthy.
In this article, we walk you through three key critical questions our professional fact-checkers ask to help decide which claims are credible and which ones are misleading, suspicious, or just plain wrong.
你可能会遇到数百索赔在一天之内。索赔的来源多得令人眼花缭乱——朋友和家人、同事、记者、政治家、企业、新闻机构和政府。
索赔也可以通过多种方式传递给我们——例如，通过传统媒体渠道，来自我们在社交媒体上认识的人，或者来自餐桌上的家庭成员。
每当一个人分享信息，他们就成为一个信息源。在我们确定一个信息源是值得信赖的之前，对它提出关键性的问题是很重要的。
在这篇文章中，我们将向您介绍三个关键的问题，我们的专业事实核查人员会询问这些问题，以帮助您确定哪些说法是可信的，哪些说法是误导性的、可疑的，或者仅仅是错误的。

Who made this claim? 这个说法是谁提出的？

We often know the people in our social circle who stick closely to the facts and those prone to re-framing information to support their own beliefs. But when friends and family share information from someone else, things start to get more complicated.
Online, it’s even more difficult because we encounter lots of people and organisations that we don’t have any direct experience with.
To work out who is making a claim, it’s important to first identify if they are a named source or an unknown or anonymous source.
News organisations will always attach their name to the claims they make via news stories, while the journalists that work for them usually do this as well. This is important because it means the news organisation, and often the journalist as well, can be accountable for the claims they publish.
In Australia, if people believe a news story contains factual errors, they can challenge the news organisation, ask them to provide further evidence, or to retract the claim. If they think they’ve got it wrong, they can make a formal complaint.
People are far less likely to make things up if they are named as the source of information because there may be consequences for giving false information.
As a general principle, journalists use named sources in their stories. Again, this means someone can be held accountable for these claims. A named source of information can be asked by others to provide further evidence or more information. Including the name of a source next to the claim means their reputation is on the line along with the journalist’s.
One exception to this rule would be if a journalist needs to protect a source because they could be put at risk if they are named. Even in this case, journalists are still meant to confirm the source’s identity, even if this won’t be published.
在我们的社交圈中，我们经常知道有些人坚持事实，有些人倾向于重新构建信息以支持自己的信念。但是，当朋友和家人分享别人的信息时，事情就开始变得复杂起来。
在网上，这就更难了，因为我们会遇到很多我们没有任何直接经验的人和组织。
要确定是谁提出了声明，重要的是首先确定他们是一个有名的来源还是一个未知或匿名的来源。
新闻机构总是会在他们通过新闻故事发表的声明上加上他们的名字，而为他们工作的记者通常也会这样做。这一点很重要，因为这意味着新闻机构，通常还有记者，可以对他们发表的言论负责。
在澳大利亚，如果人们认为新闻报道包含事实错误，他们可以质疑新闻机构，要求他们提供进一步的证据，或者撤回声明。如果他们认为自己弄错了，他们可以提出正式的投诉。
如果人们被称为信息来源，他们就不太可能编造事情，因为提供虚假信息可能会有后果。
作为一般原则，记者在报道中使用具名消息来源。再次，这意味着有人可以追究这些说法的责任。一个具名的信息来源可以被其他人要求提供进一步的证据或更多的信息。在声明旁边加上消息来源的名字意味着他们的名誉和记者的名誉都岌岌可危。
这一规则的一个例外是，如果记者需要保护一个消息来源，因为如果他们被指名道姓，他们可能会处于危险之中。即使在这种情况下，记者仍然需要确认消息来源的身份，即使这不会被发表。

News organisations also have internal fact-checking processes. Some news organisations are likely to have more robust systems than others. For example, organisations that are part of the International Fact-Checking Network, such as AAP FactCheck, or the Global Investigative Journalism Network have agreed to a shared set of principles and practices to guide their fact-checking.
But, sometimes, people impersonate trusted sources. That’s why it’s important to not immediately trust a screenshot that appears to come from a trusted source. Screenshots can easily be edited. Instead, go straight to the original source to check the information is really from that source.
Consider this example where a Facebook user posted a photo of a fake letter from the Fijian government-owned energy provider claiming it would shut down power to the entire island before an impending cyclone hit. AAP FactCheck contacted the energy company and quickly confirmed the company had not created the letter. However, the story had already been shared more than 130 times and viewed 16,000 times on social media.
新闻机构也有内部的事实核查程序。一些新闻机构可能拥有比其他机构更强大的系统。例如，Advance Auto Parts FactCheck或全球调查性新闻网络等国际事实核查网络（International Fact-Check Network）的一部分已同意采用一套共同的原则和做法来指导其事实核查。
但有时候，人们会冒充可靠的线人。这就是为什么不要立即相信看似来自可信来源的屏幕截图非常重要。可以很容易地编辑屏幕截图。相反，直接去原始来源检查信息是否真的来自该来源。
举个例子，一个Facebook用户发布了一张照片，照片上是斐济政府拥有的能源供应商的一封假信，声称将在飓风来袭前切断全岛的电力供应。Advance Auto Parts FactCheck联系了这家能源公司，并很快证实该公司并没有伪造这封信。然而，这个故事已经在社交媒体上被分享了130多次，观看了16000次。

On social media platforms, people sometimes use a false name or a forged identity. This goes against the account integrity policies of most platforms and can be reported. Verified social media pages or accounts confirm the authentic identity of a high-profile creator or brand and may be signified by a tick beside the page or account name. But it’s important to note that verification doesn’t mean the content posted from these accounts is necessarily trustworthy – only that the poster’s identity has been confirmed.
Social media platforms may also have other features to help users to check the integrity of pages or accounts they are viewing. On Facebook, for example, every page has a Page Transparency tool, to help users to determine if the page can be trusted. The tool includes information about the page, such as: previous names, the number of admins and country in which they’re located, as well as any ads the page is running. Ad Library enables people to learn more about the ads they see on Facebook, including who paid for them.
在社交媒体平台上，人们有时会使用假名或伪造身份。这违反了大多数平台的账户完整性政策，可以举报。经过验证的社交媒体页面或账户可确认知名创作者或品牌的真实身份，并可通过页面或账户名称旁边的勾号来表示。但需要注意的是，验证并不意味着从这些账号发布的内容一定是可信的——只意味着发布者的身份得到了确认。
社交媒体平台也可能有其他功能，帮助用户检查他们正在查看的页面或帐户的完整性。例如，在Facebook上，每个页面都有一个页面透明度工具，以帮助用户确定该页面是否可信。该工具包括有关页面的信息，例如:以前的名称、管理员数量和他们所在的国家/地区，以及该页面正在运行的任何广告。广告库使用户能够更多地了解他们在Facebook上看到的广告，包括谁为这些广告付费。

When you encounter an anonymous匿名的 or unknown source online, it’s important to recognise that, while a claim they are making might be true, without knowing who they are, it’s impossible to know if they have the relevant expertise 专业知识or experience to make the claim, or if they have something to gain from making the claim. Knowing how people are connected to a claim helps us to decide if their claim could be biased or motivated by self-interest.
After identifying the source of a claim, we need to ask whether the source is reliable. To do this, we can ask questions about their past behaviour. One way to check this is to use a tool to see if the poster’s past content has been archived so you can establish when an account was created and how it has been used in the past. For example, this link takes you to Scott Morrison’s Twitter profile from 2013 when he was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. You can also search a profile or website to see if the publisher constantly promotes a particular narrative about a topic.
当你在网上遇到匿名或未知来源时，重要的是要认识到，尽管他们的说法可能是真的，不知道他们是谁，就不可能知道他们是否有相关的专业知识或经验来提出主张，也不可能知道他们提出主张是否有什么好处。了解人们是如何与某个主张联系在一起的，有助于我们确定他们的主张是否有偏见或受自身利益驱使。
在确定了一个索赔的来源之后，我们需要询问这个来源是否可靠。要做到这一点，我们可以问他们过去的行为问题。检查的一个方法是使用一个工具来查看发布者过去的内容是否被存档，这样你就可以建立一个帐户是什么时候创建的，以及它过去是如何被使用的。例如，这个链接会带你到2013年斯科特·莫里森（Scott Morrison）担任移民和边境保护部部长时的Twitter个人资料。你也可以搜索个人资料或网站，看看出版商是否不断地推广关于某个主题的特定叙述。

Also consider the affiliations隶属关系 and responsibilities of your source. To whom do they pledge their loyalties?他们向谁宣誓效忠？ Will the source benefit from the claim politically or financially? Are they serving the interest of their shareholders股东, a head of state or political party, a social cause or movement, advertisers, employers, parent companies? Are they bound by a code of ethics or charter?
Without transparency about a source’s affiliations and allegiances, we can’t determine if they are likely to be offering a biased perspective.
还要考虑你的消息来源的从属关系和责任。他们向谁宣誓效忠？提交人是否会从索赔中获得政治或经济利益？他们是否为股东、国家元首或政党、社会事业或运动、广告商、雇主、母公司的利益服务？他们是否受到道德准则或章程的约束？
如果信息来源的从属关系和忠诚度不透明，我们就无法确定他们是否可能提供有偏见的观点。

What’s the evidence to support this claim? 支持这种说法的证据是什么？

People who promote misinformation are often motivated by financial, political or psychological interests, such as feeling superior or finding a community that shares outsider perspectives. One way they may try to gain interest and attention is to evoke a strong emotional response from people.
If information evokes a strong emotional response from us—fear, outrage, empathy, jealousy, excitement, or disgust, for example— it’s important to take a moment to untangle our emotional response and ask some critical questions about the claims being made.
传播虚假信息的人通常是出于经济、政治或心理利益，比如感觉高人一等，或者找到一个分享局外人观点的社区。他们可能试图获得兴趣和注意力的一种方法是唤起人们强烈的情感反应。
如果信息引起我们强烈的情绪反应，例如恐惧、愤怒、同情、嫉妒、兴奋或厌恶-花点时间来理清我们的情绪反应，并对正在提出的主张提出一些关键性的问题是很重要的。

Sources should always be transparent about how their evidence was produced and how they arrived at the conclusion they did. We need to be skeptical of any sources that promise ‘exclusive’ information or that provide statistics and data without telling us where these came from. If we are left with no way to check if this information is true and no one is willing to be held accountable for the claim, we can’t trust it.
It’s also critical to know who has funded any research which has produced a claim. The source should be transparent about whether the funding body had any say in the design of the research or in the presentation of the findings.
资料来源应始终公开其证据是如何产生的，以及他们是如何得出结论的。我们需要对任何承诺“独家”信息或提供统计数据而不告诉我们这些数据来自何处的来源持怀疑态度。如果我们没有办法检查这些信息是否真实，也没有人愿意为这种说法负责，我们就不能信任它。
同样重要的是，要知道是谁资助了任何一项得出结论的研究。资料来源应公开说明供资机构在研究的设计或研究结果的介绍方面是否有任何发言权。

Determining if something is factual means considering the accuracy of the content and the context of a claim. But both of these can change and evolve over time in certain situations.
Something that was true—a policy or proposed policy for example—can be overturned被推翻了. New evidence can also come to light. If you’re reading or seeing an old or outdated source, the evidence contained in it might not be the most current. Or this old source may be presented to you as though it is new and current, when it is not.
确定某件事是否属实意味着要考虑内容的准确性和声明的上下文。但在某些情况下，这两者都可以随着时间的推移而改变和发展。
一些真实的东西——例如一项政策或拟议的政策——可以被推翻。新的证据也会浮出水面。如果你正在阅读或看到一个旧的或过时的来源，其中包含的证据可能不是最新的。或者这个旧的源泉可能被呈现给你，好像它是新的和当前的，但其实不是。

What do trusted sources say about this claim? 可靠的消息来源对这种说法有什么看法？

Fact-checking services, especially those accredited by the IFCN, provide an excellent database of verified information that can help quickly determine if an online claim is credible.
If you’ve looked for a fact-check article from a trusted service but haven’t found what you need, you can make a submission to AAP FactCheck after reviewing their selection criteria.
By paying attention to the source of claims and by asking the same critical questions professional fact-checkers use, we can all play a role in stopping the spread of misinformation.
事实核查服务，特别是那些由IFCN认可的服务，提供了一个极好的数据库，可以帮助快速确定一个在线声明是否可信。
如果你已经从一个值得信赖的服务机构寻找事实核查文章，但没有找到你需要的，你可以在查看他们的选择标准后提交给Advance Auto Parts FactCheck。
通过关注声明的来源，并向专业事实核查人员提出同样的关键问题，我们都可以在阻止错误信息传播方面发挥作用。

Trusted Sources:
Don’t manipulate media to add or remove things that change the meaning or context. This applies to everything from pictures, videos, sounds and words.
Don’t seek to deceive or mislead people.
Check the source of any claims made and verify if the source is qualified to make the claim.
Declare the interests of a source when these could contribute to bias.
Are transparent about the source and context of any claims. They will provide enough information about the claim and source so you can check these out yourself.
Use original sources and evidence whenever possible and fact-check when they are using sources from other media.
Admit when they don’t know something and publish corrections when they make a mistake.
可信来源：
不要操纵媒体来添加或删除改变含义或上下文的内容。这适用于从图片，视频，声音和文字的一切。
不要试图欺骗或误导人们。
检查任何声明的来源，并核实该来源是否有资格提出声明。
当信息来源的利益可能导致偏见时，申报其利益。
对任何声明的来源和背景都是透明的。他们将提供有关索赔和来源的足够信息，这样你就可以检查出这些自己。
尽可能使用原始来源和证据，并在使用其他媒体来源时进行事实核查。
承认他们不知道的东西，并公布更正时，他们犯了一个错误。