Practical guide
Evaluate a news source before adding it
Evaluate the source for the job it will perform. Read recent work, identify primary evidence and authorship, inspect corrections and access, and compare its contribution with sources already in the list.[1][2]
Why this gets difficult
Source evaluation becomes superficial when it stops at brand reputation or a category label. A useful source must be assessed for authority, method, incentives, correction behavior, and contribution to a specific reading goal.[1][2]
A practical way through
- State the reader question and evidence role the source is meant to serve.[1][2]
- Review several recent items for authorship, sourcing, method, and correction signals.[1][2]
- Identify incentives, access limits, update pattern, and canonical URLs.[1][2]
- Run a trial period and remove the source if it remains redundant or unreliable.[1][2]
An example
The situation: A popular industry newsletter offers fast commentary but cites no primary documents and repeats an established trade publication.[1][2]
What changes: Recent issues are compared for original reporting, citation quality, corrections, and distinct reader value.[1][2]
What you get: The newsletter remains a discovery source or is removed instead of being mistaken for independent evidence.[1][2]
What to watch for
Sources worth keeping
How Scottie helps
Scottie depends on reader-selected sources; its list of what Scottie read can help reveal which publications repeatedly add value and which mostly echo others.[3]