Audit beginner Works with: ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude

Source Credibility Evaluation

Rubric scoring Needs web browsing Has example

Judge whether sources are reliable enough.

The Open buttons send the prompt text as currently shown below to that site only when you click. Fill in the placeholders first.

Evaluate whether a source is reliable enough for my purpose. The source (title, author, publisher, date, URL, and the text or key claims): [SOURCE_DETAILS]. What I plan to use it for: [INTENDED_USE]. Other sources on the same point: [OTHER_SOURCES].

Score each from 1 to 5 with a reason, using what I provided; write "not assessed" and say how to check when I did not provide enough:
1. Authority: author's expertise and affiliation relevant to the topic.
2. Publisher: editorial standards, corrections policy, ownership, and possible conflicts of interest.
3. Evidence: primary data and methods or only claims and opinions.
4. Transparency: sources cited, data available, funding disclosed.
5. Currency: date relative to how fast the topic changes.
6. Consistency: agreement with other reliable sources.
7. Purpose and bias: informing, selling, persuading, or entertaining.
8. Tone: sensational or measured.

Total the score with weights suited to my intended use (explain the weights). Give a verdict: strong, usable with caution, use only for background, or avoid. State how I should cite or caveat it. Include the three checks I can do in five minutes to verify the author and publisher independently.

Fill in before use

Optional: type your details and the prompt above updates. Nothing is saved or sent.

Replace each bracketed placeholder with your own details, then paste into ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or another assistant.

Source: a 2023 industry blog post claiming "AI cuts costs by 40 percent".
Scores: authority 2 (author is a marketing manager at a vendor); publisher 2 (company blog; no corrections policy); evidence 1 (no data or method described); transparency 1 (no sources cited); currency 2 (3 years old in a fast field); consistency 2 (two independent reports gave 10-20% savings in the examples you provided); purpose and bias 1 (sells the product); tone 2 (sensational).
Weighted score (evidence and bias weighted double for a statistic): 1.8/5. Verdict: use only for background; do not cite the 40 percent figure.
Five-minute checks: search the author's name and employer; look for the original study; check whether the claim appears in independent reports.
Citation wording: "A vendor blog claims 40 percent savings (unverified)."

• sources
• credibility