{"id":50261,"date":"2021-06-10T17:43:39","date_gmt":"2021-06-10T21:43:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/?p=50261"},"modified":"2023-07-21T12:48:27","modified_gmt":"2023-07-21T16:48:27","slug":"how-to-identify-data-validity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/how-to-identify-data-validity\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Identify the Validity of Data-Driven Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

There’s this clip of comedian Bill Burr on Conan<\/em> talking about how he won\u2019t listen to his friends list a source unless it comes from the library because at least the library separates fiction from nonfiction. As most successful comedians do, Bill Burr made me sit back and laugh but also ponder his words long after the clip ended. It\u2019s true, and as stated by Conan O\u2019Brien in the clip, if you\u2019re looking for a “source” to support your claim, you\u2019ll be able to find it. Whether that source is reputable or not is the real question.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

I imagine that this idea of terrible sourcing for an untrue claim reminds you of someone or even something you saw. For me, I typically see it from some people on Facebook, for example. Before I jump further into this, I need to acknowledge that it is difficult to have a civil, open discussion about politics on social media. You are limited by your character count, and you can\u2019t use tone of voice and things of that nature like you can in in-person conversations. If you took Facebook comments into account, you\u2019d think that there would be numerous studies about how \u201cmasks are harmful to us,\u201d or how \u201cCOVID-19 is a government hoax.\u201d For the record, those two things are wrong: masks aren\u2019t harmful, and COVID-19 is most definitely not a government hoax.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Those are two of the more extreme examples, but sometimes there are \u201cstats\/facts\/studies\u201d that are more difficult to tell what is real and what isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

So, with that in mind, let\u2019s review some ways that you can identify a quality source compared to a lower quality source, how to dive into data, and what to do once you have this information.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Source of the Claim(s)<\/h2>\n

If you are getting your sources from a poorly built website called \u201ctruth-news.com,\u201d which also has no citations for the claims, that is an immediate red flag. If it\u2019s from an accredited university (.edu) or government site (.gov), you can be sure that this is a reliable source. You can also count on sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and big-time newspapers.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Along with that, dig into other parts of the website to see how reputable this source is. Look at the company\u2019s mission statement and values to see if those seem reliable (and if they even exist). Look at this website\u2019s past content to see their track record. If it\u2019s just rambling blogs with no citations or references, then you can immediately eliminate them from legitimate consideration.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

But sometimes sites with misleading or misguided information are more difficult to determine, and for that you\u2019ll have to put some more work in to determine the legitimacy of the primary source.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

\"News<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Dive into the Data<\/h2>\n

Ask anyone who works with numbers, and they\u2019ll tell you how easy it is to manipulate statistics to appear in your favor.<\/a> So sometimes you\u2019ll see a headline that says \u201c90% of people who do this are more likely to…\u201d or \u201c87% of people located in this area are…\u201d You get the idea. You might even find this accidental (or intentional) misuse of data in larger, more reputable publications. The best way to get to the bottom of the claim is to dive into the data and ask some of these questions:<\/p>\n