Task
I check a lot of AI claims.
Not for a living. For my own work. I'm a marketing coordinator at a mid-sized company. I use AI tools for research, summaries, and drafts. And I've learned the hard way that AI output needs verification before it goes anywhere with my name on it.
I used to check claims by searching manually. Open a new tab. Type a query. Scroll through results. Open a page. Check the claim. Close the tab. Repeat.
That worked. But it was slow. And I kept forgetting which sources I trusted.
So I built a bookmark system. I created a folder in my browser called "Claim Check." Inside it, I organized the sources I use most often into categories.
I've been using it for about three months. It's faster than searching manually. But I think it's missing something. I'm hoping the community can tell me what.
Tool and Date
Tool: Browser bookmarks (I use Firefox, but this works in any browser)
Date created: June 2026
Date of this post: September 18, 2026
Used on: Roughly 40-50 AI claim checks so far
Original Input
I start with an AI claim. It might be a statistic, a date, a quote, a study, a name, or a recommendation.
Before, I would search for it manually. Now, I open my "Claim Check" folder and pick the source type that matches the claim.
The folder has 12 subfolders. Each one is a category of source. Inside each folder are bookmarks to specific sites I trust for that category.
Claim Under Review
The claim under review isn't a specific AI error. It's the system itself.
I want to know whether my 12 source categories are right. Whether they're enough. Whether I'm missing anything obvious.
Here's what I have.
Evidence
Here are the 12 source types in my bookmark system.
1. Government sites. Federal, state, and local government pages. For claims about laws, regulations, permits, and official statistics.
2. Peer-reviewed journals. Direct links to journals I can access. For claims about research, studies, and academic findings.
3. University databases. University library databases and research repositories. For claims about academic topics.
4. Primary documents. Archives, museum collections, and historical repositories. For claims about historical events and primary sources.
5. Fact-checking sites. Independent fact-checking organizations. For claims that have already been checked by others.
6. Statistics agencies. Government statistics offices and international data agencies. For claims about numbers, trends, and demographics.
7. News archives. Major news outlets with archives I can search. For claims about recent events.
8. Industry reports. Reports from trade associations, consulting firms, and research organizations. For claims about business and industry trends.
9. Legal databases. Court records, legal filings, and legal commentary. For claims about laws, cases, and legal precedents.
10. Medical databases. Medical journals and health agencies. For claims about health and medicine.
11. Company filings. SEC filings and corporate disclosures. For claims about companies, finances, and business operations.
12. Wikipedia (as a starting point only). Not as a source. As a way to find sources. I check the citations, not the article.
Each subfolder has 5-15 bookmarks. Some are generic (Google Scholar, PubMed, the U.S. Census Bureau). Some are specific (a state's department of labor, a specific journal I trust).
Finding
Partly correct.
The system works. It's faster than searching manually. It's more consistent. It's helped me check claims I would have skipped otherwise.
But it has gaps. I've noticed at least four.
Gap 1: International sources. My system is U.S.-focused. If a claim involves another country, I don't have a trusted source. I need to add international government sites, international statistics agencies, and international news archives.
Gap 2: Non-English sources. Some claims involve sources in other languages. I don't have a system for that. I need a way to search and translate non-English sources, or to know when a claim requires a non-English source.
Gap 3: Data archives. Some claims involve datasets. I don't have a way to check the underlying data. I need to add data archives, open data portals, and dataset repositories.
Gap 4: Preprints and working papers. Some claims involve research that hasn't been peer-reviewed. I don't have a category for that. I need to add preprint servers and working paper repositories.
I also think I might have too many categories. Some of them overlap. Government sites and statistics agencies, for example. University databases and peer-reviewed journals. Should I combine them? Or keep them separate?
Risk
If I don't fix these gaps, I'll miss claims I can't check.
Here's what could happen.
I'll rely on U.S. sources for non-U.S. claims. If a claim involves another country, I'll search U.S. sources and find nothing. Or worse, I'll find a U.S. source that's talking about the other country, but isn't primary.
I'll miss non-English sources entirely. If the only source for a claim is in another language, I won't find it. I'll mark the claim as unsupported when it's actually just not in English.
I'll miss data-level errors. If a claim cites a statistic but the underlying data says something different, I won't catch it. I'll check the article that cites the data, but not the data itself.
I'll confuse peer-reviewed and preprint research. If a claim cites a study that hasn't been peer-reviewed, I'll treat it the same as a peer-reviewed study. That's a mistake.
The risk isn't just missing claims. It's marking claims as "unresolved" when they're actually just outside my system. That's a different kind of error. And it's harder to catch.
Lesson
Here's what I've learned from building this system.
A bookmark system is a habit system. The bookmarks themselves aren't the value. The value is in the habit of checking. The bookmarks just make the habit faster.
Source types matter more than specific sources. I used to bookmark specific sites. Now I bookmark categories. The categories remind me to look for the right kind of source, not just any source.
Overlap is a feature, not a bug. I worried about having too many categories. But when a claim could fit in two categories, checking both is a form of redundancy. Sometimes the second check finds something the first didn't.
Wikipedia is a starting point, not a source. I use Wikipedia to find citations. I never cite Wikipedia itself. This is a rule I've kept from the beginning.
Some claims can't be checked with bookmarks. If a claim is about something very specific (a local business, a personal experience, an unrecorded event), no bookmark will help. For those, I mark the claim as unresolved and move on.
The system needs regular updates. I've added and removed bookmarks several times. Sites change. Paywalls move. New sources appear. The system has to stay current.
What I'm Asking the Community
What source types should I add?
Here are my specific questions.
1. What am I missing? I've identified four gaps. Are there others?
2. Should I combine categories? Is 12 too many? Should some be merged?
3. How do you handle international claims? What sources do you use for non-U.S. claims?
4. How do you handle non-English claims? Do you use translation tools? Do you have non-English bookmarks?
5. How do you check data-level claims? When a claim cites a statistic, do you check the article or the data?
6. What about preprints? Do you have a way to distinguish peer-reviewed from non-peer-reviewed research?
7. Should the forum have a shared bookmark list? Maybe we could build a community-curated list of source types and specific sites. Something that new members can use.
I'm also curious about the process. Do you have a system like this? Do you use bookmarks, a spreadsheet, a notes app, or something else? If you've built a similar system, what does yours look like?
And one more question: should I share my bookmark list? I've been hesitant because it includes some personal favorites that might not work for everyone. But maybe a shared starting point would be useful.
If you have a system that works, please share it. If you've built one and stopped, why? I'd rather improve mine now than after another claim I can't check.
A Few More Details
I should mention: I haven't shared the specific bookmarks here. I wanted to focus on the categories. But if the community wants a shared list, I can share mine as a starting point.
I should also mention: I'm not a librarian or a researcher. I'm a marketing coordinator with a habit. My system is built for everyday claims, not academic ones. If you have a more rigorous system, I'd love to see it.
If you have a source type I should add, please tell me. If you think one of my categories doesn't belong, tell me that too. I'd rather have a better system than a bigger one.
Comments
No comments yet — be the first to share a thought.