The main thing would be to never trust a single source all the time, and question everything, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it. The process of ana

The main thing would be to never trust a single source all the time, and question everything, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it. The process of analyzing how credible information is and how it came to be is oftentimes more advantageous than simply finding credible information I try different search terms for the same topic. Differences between the articles presented help in finding areas of disagreement that can be explored further. When I find a result that seems interesting, I search for the opposite to find opposing point, and ask which one seems more reasonable. I try to allow any stance to be changed as long as I manage to find anything more reasonable than what I had thought. I search for different categories of media: articles, videos, podcasts, forums/comments so that regardless of the creator's preferred media platform for delivery, I can look at it. Longform videos are oftentimes helpful because they go into a topic further and it is easier to find more points that can be investigated further. Many books are not online and can be an equally good resource. I go to the sources linked in the article. Sometimes, I use the time or location search filter to find what the search engine suggests for different locations and geographies. When I come across something that seems outlandish, even over Group Messaging or comments sections, I search for those even if I know it is wrong because there is oftentimes something to be learned in how it became a prevailing view for some or many. Of course, this is for online information only. Information you get offline is as important and in many cases more important.