Are you really sure that the stats you’re quoting in your presentations, articles, or posts are accurate and cited correctly? Often, when we see a statistic referenced somewhere that we’d like to use as support, we just assume it’s correct. Guilty as charged. But something happened a few years back to change the way I look at my sources.
I was asked to proofread 75 stats provided by a company I worked for. To the left is a fragment of the edits I made (blurred to protect the guilty). I got about halfway through the spreadsheet when I noticed a citation that looked a little fishy, so I checked it out on Google. It was egregiously incorrect, and I knew what I had to do. I went back to the very beginning and looked up every single statistic to ensure it was correct.
Here’s an interesting fact: 86% of the statistics I was provided were either inaccurately reported, incorrectly cited, or completely false. This is an enormous problem.
For example, here’s one that sounded pretty solid: Millennials got so many participation trophies growing up that a recent study showed that 40% believe they should be promoted every two years, regardless of performance. This “fact” was printed in a Time.com article with no citation. I searched for the actual study, and the closest one I could find with a similar statistic was this:
“Nearly half (49 percent) of Millennials expect to be promoted based on their performance, regardless of their length of employment. ” The Future of Millennials’ Careers, Career Advisory Board, January 2011.
Not really all that sexy or provocative now, is it? Here’s another example I found showing sloppy citation:
Since 2005, there has been a 60 percent increase in pending federal regulations that are defined as “major” or “economically significant” – costing the economy $100 million or more. Washington Post, 2011.
Yes, the statistic was printed in the Washington Post, but if the person who provided it dug just a little bit further into the article, he or she would have seen that the statistic was paraphrasing Senator Rob Portman’s opening statement from the report, “Federal Regulation: A Review of Legislative Proposals, Part I,” which would be the proper citation to use.
It’s critical when using statistics that we not only double-check the accuracy of the information itself but also properly vet the source. If you’re making a presentation or writing an article and are questioned about a stat that turns out to be incorrect, the credibility of your entire piece will come into question. I look at that Time article in a completely different light knowing that the statistic about Millennials was likely altered to support the author’s agenda. I wonder what else is fabricated.
Providing factual information protects your personal integrity, as well as the integrity of your company or brand. The same goes for giving credit where credit is due. When you leave a trail of breadcrumbs, anyone can easily find the original information you’re referencing.
Ensure your information is correct
Double check everything, and I mean everything. Yeah, I know it’s time consuming. Believe me. It literally took an entire day to proofread and edit those 75 stats up there. But it’s important.
Copy and paste. Plug the entire quote or statistic into Google (with quotation marks around it). See what comes up. If the exact phrase isn’t found in the results, you’ve got more work to do; dig deeper. Delete the quotes and use prominent keywords in the search box. For example, in the first quote above, I used the words, “Millennials,” “40 percent,” and “promoted” to find what I believe to be the real statistic.
Check your source. If your statistic comes from a news or magazine article, don’t take it at face value and use that medium as your source; keep reading. It’s likely that the publication references a study, and the author will include the original source in the article. If it’s not included, either dig around on Google a little more to try to find the right citation, like I did above, or don’t use the stat. Unsupported facts aren’t facts.
Also, a blog post is not a source. Unless the author of the blog you’re quoting conducted the actual survey or study containing the statistic him/herself, the writer is merely a messenger. If you can’t verify the information, don’t use it.
Nope, Wikipedia isn’t a source either. Simply follow the footnotes on Wikipedia and you’ve got your source. But, be sure to validate it because Wiki’s a good resource, but it’s not always right.
Bottom line, do your due diligence to ensure you’re providing accurate information to your audience. Your integrity is worth the extra effort.