Content Writing 101: Reliable Research

Internet content writers suffer a strange dichotomy that exists in almost no other business. We have two bosses who are largely unaware of each other and who have completely conflicting needs.

First, we have our advertisers. We produce our writing for the wages that they shell out. Ironically, they often couldn’t care less what we write. Our work is simply a billboard upon which to place their advertisements. It is in our mutual best interest to provide them the biggest, most effective billboard that we can.

Secondly, we have our readers. They don’t pay us a dime, but they are our consumers nonetheless. In essence, they pay for our writing by looking at our billboard. Because we are  offering our work as a product, we assume a responsibility to our reader. If a reader comes to our page seeking information, we are ethically bound to provide answers that are well-researched.

The short answer: Enough research to sufficiently enable the writer to provide their readers with the information they need.

In reality, there is no set time. Certain types of work, like opinion pieces, may require no research. After all, how much additional information do you really need to tell your readers that you hate spinach?

Those writing on topics within their field of expertise may need little or no information beyond their education and personal experiences. These writers may spend as little as five-ten minutes per article verifying specific facts or statistics. In essence, a large part of their life has already been spent researching their topic and they need only tap into already acquired knowledge.

Some content writers, myself included, are often assigned articles on topic that they have little knowledge of. In these instances, the research often takes longer than the actual writing the article.

I know very few content writers that would spend all day in a library researching a 400 word article that they may be paid fifteen dollars to write. Google, as repugnant as it can often be, is our main research tool.

The problem with online research is not lack of information, but lack of reliable information. Anyone can put up a website and fill it with whatever they desire. A major challenge is distinguishing dependable details from the ramblings of spammers that exist solely to receive a check from AdSense.

Oh the irony…

• Poor spelling or grammar

• Statistics with no attached citations or links to scientific studies

• Businesses or organization names that exist nowhere outside of the website.*

• Links to websites that are purely commercial in nature

• Argumentative or biased language

• Sales pitches

• Excessive advertisements

• Blatant partisanship

• Gaudy colors and/or unusual fonts

• URLs that are deceptively similar to government or educational websites

• Websites with highly visible contact information*
• “Official” websites of reliable organizations*
• Affiliation with reputable universities or colleges*
• PDF files of published clinical trials or case histories
• Press releases
• Websites of respected print publications
• Websites with endorsements from profession organizations
• Websites that are frequently cited by other respectable websites
• Government websites

*Information on businesses and colleges may be researched on the Better Business Bureau website.

Every other content writer in the world uses Wiki, often verbatim.

Articles based solely on Wiki information will inevitably contain duplicate material.

Despite public opinion, Wiki entries are not always accurate.

Wikipedia is, in essence, a content site. This means it is written by content writers. Need convincing? Lets read Wiki’s own response to the question “Who writes Wikipedia?” Their answer...

“You do! Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training.”

If, after existing in the content writing culture for more than five minutes, you still think that all articles written by content writers are 100% accurate, you are either blindly optimistic or hopelessly unobservant.

Wikipedia entries are incomplete.

Those that are correct often give only the basic facts. Fully-fleshed articles require more understanding than basic Wiki entries offer. Differing opinions, case studies, and examples all add depth to informational writing.

You are given a topic on which you have not even the faintest degree of knowledge.

In this case, Wiki can provide you with the basics so you can start your own research. To use Wiki for this purpose:

1. Close your word processing program and/or note pad.

2. Remove any pencils and pens from the area.

3. Read the Wiki entry.

4. Close the Wiki entry.

5. Examine at least one other website before writing a word.

You are having difficulty finding information that is pertinent to your topic.

You need not actually read the article, just scroll down to the bottom to find the references. These links provide the original sources from which the entry was distilled. These sources often provide information that is much more comprehensive (and far less plagiarized) than the Wikipedia entry.

“Eons ago the first caveman slapped some paintings up on a cave wall. We’ve all been plagiarizing him ever since.”

Each time that we come into contact with new ideas, we experience a form of intellectual plagiarism. We take the new knowledge and claim it as our own. It becomes part of our life experience and is installed into the databanks of our mind. In essence, all learning acquired from sources other than solitary exploration is plagiaristic.

Researching, which is a universally accepted form of learning, can quite accidentally lead to literal plagiarism. Since content writers generally create articles shortly after or even during research, those newly found facts are fresh in our mind… often in the exact form in which we learned them.

One of the best ways to avoid accidental plagiarism while working quickly is to get information from several sources. Ideally, writers should allow themselves breaks between researching and composing. Before writing the article, the websites used should be completely hidden. Finally, after the article is complete, a quick scan with an online plagiarism detector may be useful.

For those wondering about the source of the caveman quote, I am its author. It is plagiarized (with my express permission) from a writer's forum conversation.