Know what you're reading before you read it.
This doesn't mean you have to do a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation into a source before you engage with it. But if you're reading a piece on economics by a Nobel prize-winning economist, you should know that before you read it. Conversely, if you're watching a video on the many benefits of milk consumption that was put out by the dairy industry, you probably want to know that as well.
This doesn't mean the Nobel economist will always be right and that the dairy industry can't ever be trusted. But knowing the expertise and agenda of the source is crucial to your interpretation of what they say. Taking sixty seconds to figure out where it is from before reading will help you decide if it is worth your time, and if it is, help you to better understand its significance and trustworthiness.
This is the move where you answer the questions you asked in Move 1: Stop:
Don't worry about doing extensive research into your sources-- this is a quick check of the expertise and agenda of a source's creators, and it should only take around 1-2 minutes.
Spending even a few seconds learning about the expertise and agenda of the source of your information will help you greatly when it comes time to decide whether to use it or not!
"Don't use Wikipedia as a source" is a mantra we've probably all heard at one time or another. And it's not entirely bad advice: Wikipedia--like all online sources-- should be approached carefully, particularly when the subject is something controversial or very recent.
That said, Wikipedia can be one of the best places to go to learn about a consensus viewpoint on a topic. A consensus viewpoint is a perspective that most people who know about a subject will agree upon.
Wikipedia has strict rules about where its community can source its facts, and it holds its authors to a neutral point of view. Therefore, Wikipedia often provides the best introduction that you'll find online to most subjects.
One of the best things about Wikipedia is its insistence that all major claims are accurately sourced. You can almost always find a footnote connected to a Wikipedia claim that will point you to that original source-- which you can then find and then potentially use as a source in your own research!
Note: This SIFT method guide was adapted from Michael Caulfield's "Check, Please!" course. The canonical version of this course exists at http://lessons.checkplease.cc. The text and media of this site, where possible, is released into the CC-BY, and free for reuse and revision. We ask people copying this course to leave this note intact, so that students and teachers can find their way back to the original (periodically updated) version if necessary. We also ask librarians and reporters to consider linking to the canonical version.
As the authors of the original version have not reviewed any other copy's modifications, the text of any site not arrived at through the above link should not be sourced to the original authors.