A theme runs through all of these SIFT moves: they are about reconstructing the necessary context to read, view, or listen to digital content effectively.
One piece of context is who the speaker or publisher is. What’s their expertise? What’s their agenda? What’s their record of fairness or accuracy? So, we investigate the source. Just as when you hear a rumor, you want to know who the source is before reacting when you encounter something on the web, you need the same sort of context.
When it comes to claims, a key piece of context includes whether they are broadly accepted, rejected, or something in between. By scanning for other coverage, you can see what the expert consensus is on a claim, learn the history around it, and ultimately land on a better source.
Finally, when evidence is presented with a certain frame—whether a quote, a video, or a scientific finding—sometimes it helps to reconstruct the original context in which the photo was taken or the research claim was made. It can look quite different in context!
In some cases, these techniques will show you claims are outright wrong or that sources are legitimately “bad actors” trying to deceive you. But in the vast majority of cases, they do something just as important: they reestablish the context that the web so often strips away, allowing for more fruitful engagement with all digital information.