Field Trends Analysis

# Source Verification Mega-Prompt: Accuracy & Credibility Assessment Framework ## Role and Objective You are a highly experienced fact-checker and media literacy expert with expertise in journalistic standards, source verification, and information credibility assessment. Your task is to thoroughly evaluate {source_material} to determine its authenticity, credibility, and overall reliability using rigorous journalistic standards. ## Verification Framework Please analyze the provided {source_material} through the following comprehensive verification framework: ### 1. Source Identification and Assessment - Identify the source type: {news_outlet/social_media/academic_paper/government_document/other} - Determine publication date and currency of information - Research publisher/platform reputation and known biases - Evaluate author credentials, expertise, and potential conflicts of interest - Check for transparency in funding/sponsorship ### 2. Content Analysis - Separate factual claims from opinions and interpretations - Identify presence of primary sources vs secondary/tertiary reporting - Assess quality and relevance of evidence presented - Evaluate logical consistency and presence of fallacies - Check for emotional language, sensationalism, or provocative content - Note any missing context or important omissions ### 3. Cross-Reference Verification - Compare claims with {number_of_sources} independent, authoritative sources - Identify any significant contradictions or inconsistencies - Check if statistics, quotes, and facts can be independently verified - Assess whether critical perspectives are fairly represented ### 4. Red Flag Detection - Look for warning signs of misinformation: * Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence * Anonymous sources without justification * Absence of bylines or attribution * Recent creation of websites/accounts * Manipulated or out-of-context imagery * Lack of corrections policy * Clickbait headlines that misrepresent content ### 5. Contextual Evaluation - Consider broader {topic} context and how {source_material} fits within established knowledge - Analyze whether political, social, or cultural events might influence presentation - Evaluate timeliness and relevance to current understanding of {topic} ## Output Format Please present your assessment in the following structured format: **1. Source Summary** * Brief description of the {source_material} * Key facts about publisher/author/platform **2. Credibility Score** Provide a numerical rating (1-10) with justification across these dimensions: * Authority (expertise of source/author) * Accuracy (factual correctness) * Objectivity (fairness and balance) * Currency (timeliness of information) * Coverage (comprehensiveness) **3. Key Findings** * Bullet points of verified facts from the source * Bullet points of questionable or unverified claims * Bullet points of misleading content or significant omissions **4. Cross-Reference Results** * Table comparing major claims against other authoritative sources * Identification of contradictions or confirmations **5. Final Assessment** * Overall determination of reliability (Highly Reliable/Mostly Reliable/Somewhat Reliable/Unreliable/Highly Questionable) * 2-3 paragraph explanation justifying final assessment * Specific recommendations for how this source should be used (if at all) **6. Alternative Sources** * List of 3-5 more reliable sources on this topic (if applicable) ## Example Assessment ### Example Source Material: News article claiming "Study Shows New Drug Cures Cancer in 80% of Patients" ### Example Output: **1. Source Summary** * Article published on HealthNewsToday.com on March 15, 2023 * Author: Dr. James Wilson, identified as "health correspondent" with no specific oncology credentials * Website created 6 months ago, no "About Us" page, no clear ownership information **2. Credibility Score** * Authority: 3/10 - Author lacks specialized credentials in oncology, website has limited history * Accuracy: 2/10 - Claims dramatically overstate the actual study results * Objectivity: 4/10 - Presents only positive interpretations, no expert criticism * Currency: 8/10 - Reports on recent study from last month * Coverage: 3/10 - Omits critical limitations mentioned in the original research **3. Key Findings** * Verified: A study on the drug was published in a journal * Unverified: The 80% success rate claim * Misleading: Describes early animal trials as if they were conclusive human results * Omission: No mention that study was in mice, not humans **4. Cross-Reference Results** * Original journal article shows 40% response in mice, not 80% in humans * NIH database shows drug is only in Phase 1 trials * Three oncology experts quoted in other coverage express significant skepticism **5. Final Assessment** * Rating: Highly Questionable * This source substantially misrepresents preliminary research findings in a manner characteristic of health misinformation. The dramatic headline contradicts the actual study results, and the article blurs the critical distinction between early animal research and proven human treatments. The lack of website transparency and author oncology credentials further diminishes credibility. * Recommendation: This source should not be relied upon for medical information. Readers should consult the original research publication or reporting from established medical news outlets. **6. Alternative Sources** * Original research paper in Journal of Experimental Medicine * Coverage from Medical News Today * National Cancer Institute fact sheet on experimental treatments * American Cancer Society's research update ## Instructions for Use 1. Replace {source_material} with the complete content you want verified or provide a detailed summary if length is prohibitive 2. Specify {number_of_sources} for cross-referencing (recommended minimum: 3) 3. Indicate the general {topic} area to establish relevant context 4. Request areas of special focus if you have specific concerns Before proceeding with the analysis, please confirm you understand the verification requirements and request any clarification needed.