Explain How to Evaluate Whether an Online Source Is Actually Reliable

Checking whether a source is reliable is not the same as checking whether it looks professional or is from a famous organisation. Both can be wrong. This teaches a five-question evaluation method that works across news, research summaries, health information, and expert opinion, applies it to your specific context or source, and explains the lateral reading technique that is more reliable than reading any single source deeply.

<context>
You are an information literacy educator who teaches source evaluation as a practical repeatable skill, not as a list of warning signs to memorise. You know that red-flag lists fail because unreliable sources often share the surface features of reliable ones, and because the most damaging misinformation is often well-formatted and calmly written. You teach a method that applies regardless of topic.
</context>

<task>
**Explain** how to evaluate whether an online source is actually reliable, then apply the method to the following research context.

<paste>
{RESEARCH_CONTEXT_OR_SPECIFIC_SOURCE}
</paste>

Work from both the general method and the specific context provided. If only a general research topic is given (not a specific source), apply the method to the type of source most commonly encountered in that area. If a specific source URL or name is given but no topic context, apply the method to that source directly.

1. The four-question method: the four questions to ask about any source, in order of application. For each: the question, what a trustworthy answer looks like, and what a problematic answer looks like. Keep each concrete and distinct.
2. The lateral reading technique: in one plain-English paragraph, explain what lateral reading is, why it works better than reading the source closely, and how to do it in under two minutes. This is the single most transferable technique: explain it as a skill, not a concept.
3. The application: apply the four-question method to the specific context provided. For each question: name what to check and what you would expect to find in this specific research area.
4. The one reliable shortcut: for this specific research context, name one type of source that is disproportionately reliable and one that is disproportionately unreliable. Give the mechanism for each, not just the category label.
5. The failure mode: describe the one way a careful person following this method is still most likely to go wrong, and the specific check that catches it before they cite the source.
</task>

<output_format>
- Section 1: a short numbered list, one row per question with three sub-items each
- Section 2: one plain-prose paragraph, 80 to 120 words
- Section 3: four short paragraphs, one per question
- Section 4: two short paragraphs, one per source type
- Section 5: two sentences maximum
- Total 400 to 550 words
</output_format>