Search these databases to find articles on non-music topics, such as globalization:
As the official digital dissertations archive for the Library of Congress, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses includes millions of searchable citations to dissertations and theses from 1861 to the present day with over a million full-text dissertations. The database offers full text for most dissertations added since 1997 and retrospective full-text coverage for older graduate works.
A bibliography of writings about music; includes hundreds of thousands of bibliographic records featuring citations, abstracts, and indexing. It covers publications from 1800-2021 and in all document types from around the world on traditional music, popular music, jazz, classical music, and more. Includes citations for all document types including books, conference proceedings, journal articles, dissertations, internet resources, and audio and visual recordings.
The SIFT Method (also known as The Four Moves) is a short list of things to do when looking at a source, with each of those things linked to one or two highly effective web techniques. Each "things to do" is a “move,” and there are four of them:

Click on the tabs to learn more about each step of the SIFT Method.
The material and graphic in "The SIFT Method for Evaluating Information" has been adapted from the "Check, Please! Starter Course" in accordance with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 License. To view the course and to learn more about CC licensing, see the links below.
The first move is the simplest. STOP reminds you of two things.
First, when you first hit a page and start to read it — STOP. Ask yourself whether you know and trust the website or source of the information. If you don't, use the other moves to get a sense of what you're looking at. Don't read it or share it until you know what it is.
Second, after you begin the process and use the moves it can be too easy to go down a rabbit hole, chasing after more and more obscure facts or getting lost in a "click cycle". If you feel yourself getting overwhelmed in your fact-checking efforts, STOP and take a second to remind yourself what your goal is. Adjust your strategy if it isn't working. Make sure you approach the problem at the right amount of depth for your purpose.
The key idea behind Step Two, Investigate the Source, is to 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.
Sometimes you don't care about the particular article that reaches you. You care about the claim the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. You want to know if it represents a consensus viewpoint or if it is the subject of much disagreement.
In this case, your best strategy is to ignore the source that reached you and look for other trusted reporting or analysis on the claim. For example, if you receive an article that says koalas have just been declared extinct from the Save the Koalas Foundation, the winning strategy may be to open up a new tab and find the best source you can that covers this, or, just as importantly, scan multiple sources to see what the consensus seems to be. In these cases, we encourage you to "find trusted coverage" that better suits your needs — more trusted, more in-depth, or maybe just more varied.
Do you have to agree with the consensus? Absolutely not! But understanding the context and history of a claim will help you better evaluate it.
A lot of things you find on the internet have been stripped of context. Maybe there's a video of a fight between two people. But what happened before that? Who started it? What was clipped out of the video and what stayed in? Maybe there's a picture that seems real but the caption is dubious at best. Maybe a claim is made about a new medical treatment supposedly based on a research paper — but you're not certain if the paper supports it.
In these cases, you should trace the claim, quote, or media back to the source, so you can see it in its original context and get a sense if the version you saw was accurately presented.