Scenario 04 — Disinformation and Information Security

1. Purpose summary and session logic

Overall objective: Participants learn to recognize 5 signs of disinformation, use the simple SIFT algorithm (Stop–Investigate–Find better coverage–Trace back to the source) and Lateral Reading (checking the source “sideways”), and co-create a Responsible Sharing Code for their group/organization.
Logic: Experience (“Clickbait or fact?” game) → organizing tools (SIFT, image/source verification) → application (team fact-checking mini reports) → decision (code + small step).
Outputs: 1) Card I1 “Fake-news signals”, 2) Card I2 “SIFT — 4 steps”, 3) Card I3 “Image/source verification checklist”, 4) Card I4 “Fact-checking report (1 page)”, 5) poster “Responsible Sharing Code”.

Sensitivity note: avoid stigmatizing examples about migrants/refugees; use neutral or anonymized content. If tension arises—pause; if needed, work with fictional headlines.

2. Learning outcomes (knowledge • skills • attitudes)

Knowledge: Recognizes types of manipulation (clickbait, taken out of context, false attribution, deepfake/AI image, an old photo presented as “new”); knows the basics of SIFT and lateral reading.
Skills: Identifies 5 warning signs, performs a quick fact-check (source, date, other coverage, original context), and prepares a one-page report.
Attitudes: Responsibility for sharing, curiosity instead of outrage, openness to correction.

3. Logistics

Room setup: horseshoe seating + 4 tables; 1 flipchart + markers; projector.

Materials and tools

Printouts (A4, 1 per person if not using devices):
Card I1 — 5 fake-news signals
Card I2 — SIFT (Stop–Investigate–Find–Trace)
Card I3 — Verification checklist: Source/Image/Author/Dates
Card I4 — Fact-checking report (1 page)
I‑RAP Rubric — Report assessment (0–2 pts/criterion)
A3 paper for the “Responsible Sharing Code” poster
HEADLINE card set (for the game): 12–16 printed headlines (real/modified, neutral topics + a few about tech/health).
Online variant (optional): phones/laptops (1 per team) to demonstrate image and source verification.
Evaluation tools: Mentimeter PRE/POST (1–5 scale): questions from section 4.

4. Mentimeter — questions (PRE and POST)

“I can recognize signs of disinformation in headlines and posts.”
“I know how to quickly check a source’s credibility (SIFT / lateral reading).”
“I have rules for responsible sharing and intend to follow them.”

Tip: for POST, ask for a short comment: “What will you use most often — STOP, lateral reading, or image verification?”

5. Detailed agenda (180’)

0–15’ Opening and ground rules (15’)

Objective: safety and why the topic matters.
What happens: rules (voluntary participation, confidentiality, right to pause, kindness); explain that we work with neutral examples and do not enter political disputes.
Materials: slide “Purpose and plan”, flipchart “Ground rules”, HEADLINE card set (do not hand out yet).

15–25’ Icebreaker “Emotional triggers” (10’)

Objective: raise awareness of how emotions influence sharing.
Instructions: On sticky notes, write 1–2 emotions that push people to share (e.g., anger, fear, pride, a sense of injustice). Create a word cloud.
Mini takeaway: strong emotion = a STOP signal.

25–35’ Mentimeter PRE (10’)

Purpose: baseline; show the averages.

35–70’ MODULE 1 — “Clickbait or fact?” game (35’)

Module objective: recognize manipulation signals and practice “STOP before sharing”.
Format: teams of 4–5.
Materials: HEADLINE deck (8–10 cards per table), Card I1.
Detailed instructions

Hand out two mixed decks: neutral/factual headlines and problematic headlines.

Task: sort them into 3 piles: “likely credible”, “likely not credible”, “not sure — needs verification”.

For each decision, note a signal from Card I1, e.g.:

strong emotion/outrage,

missing/unclear source,

an old photo presented as new,

an “expert” who cannot be verified,

no date/specifics.

Mini reflection (5’): what lands in “not sure”? what to do next? (answer: SIFT).
Success criteria: each group justifies decisions with specific signals.

70–80’ Micro-summary of M1 (10’)

Objective: write down 5 warning signs.
Output: flipchart “Our TOP‑5 signals” (stays visible until the end).

80–90’ BREAK (10’)

90–115’ MODULE 2 — SIFT toolkit + lateral reading (25’)

Objective: learn and practice quick verification steps (with or without the internet).
Materials: Card I2 (SIFT), Card I3 (Checklist), projector (optional).
Instructions (2 versions)

OFFLINE version: work with printed copies of “source pages” (About page, article excerpt, profile screenshot). Mark with highlighters: who publishes? when? do others report this? Transfer conclusions to Card I3.

ONLINE version: Demonstrate lateral reading: instead of clicking deeper into the source, open new tabs: “about the publisher” on another site, other coverage of the event, image tools (reverse image search).
Introduce 3 quick techniques

STOP (interrupt the emotional reaction; “why do I want to share this?”).

Investigate the source (who is the publisher/author? what do others say about them?).

Find better coverage (are there other sources for this information?).

Trace back (return to the original context: full quote, full video, full date).
Additionally — images/video (I3): check publication date, reverse image search (alternatives: different search engines), clues of editing/AI (odd hands/artifacts, unnatural backgrounds).
Exercise (10’): In pairs, apply SIFT to one mini example (printout or demo). Fill in Card I3.

Success criteria: each team can point to the original source (or confirm it’s missing) and at least 1 alternative, credible source.

115–125’ Energizer “3–2–1 move” (10’)

Quick movement reset; switch seats at the tables.

125–160’ MODULE 3 — Team fact-checking and the Code (35’)

Objective: produce a mini report and write down sharing rules.
Materials: Card I4 (one-page report), I‑RAP Rubric, A3 paper.
Instructions

Each table chooses one item from the “not sure” pile from M1 or receives a new example.

They perform SIFT and fill in Card I4:

What did we check?

What do other sources say?

What is the original context?

Conclusion (true/false/unclear).

Advice: what to do before you share?

Peer review (10’): exchange reports between tables and assess using the I‑RAP Rubric (0–2 pts/criterion: clarity, sources, conclusion, advice).

Code (10’): On A3, write 5 rules for responsible sharing (e.g., 1) STOP if I feel a strong emotion; 2) check the date/source; 3) don’t share screenshots without context; 4) label an image as “symbolic” if it doesn’t show the real event; 5) don’t tag people without consent).
Success criteria: each team submits 1 report + co-creates the Code.

160–172’ Mentimeter POST + reflection (12’)

Objective: assess improvement and reinforce the habit.
Instructions: The same 3 questions; then everyone chooses 1 rule from the Code as their habit for 7 days (name sticker next to the rule).

172–180’ Closing and “small step” (8’)

What happens: take photos of the Code poster and the reports; suggest displaying the Code in the room / in the online group.

6. Facilitation good practices

Emotional “detox”: if outrage appears, remind STOP; move into step-by-step verification.

Neutral examples: choose content that does not single out any nationalities/groups.

Simple language: short instructions on cards; pictograms.

Model the tools: show live how you do lateral reading.

7. Adaptations, plan B, variants

Language barrier: icon-based cards; short notes allowed in UA/RU/EN; work in mixed-language pairs.

No internet: work entirely with printouts (screenshots, “About us” pages, old/new photos for comparison).

Less time (120’): shorten M1 to 20’, M2 to 20’, M3 to 25’; create the Code in 5 minutes using “everyone adds 1 rule”.

More time (+30’): add a segment on AI images (artifacts) and the clickbait attention economy (how algorithms work).

8. Evaluation and reporting indicators

Mentimeter PRE/POST — 3 questions (section 4).

Outputs: Cards I1–I4, Code poster, I‑RAP rubrics (peer review).

Trainer observation: 2–3 reports assessed using I‑RAP, a list of “small steps”.

Attendance and consents: attendance list, consent to photograph outputs.

9. Printables

Below you’ll find the ready-to-print materials from the document (I1–I4 + rubric), as well as an additional set of sample HEADLINE cards for the game.

CARD I1 — 5 fake-news signals

Strong emotion (fear, outrage, sensation) — pause (STOP).
Unclear source/author (no “About us”, no name).
An old photo presented as “new” / context removed.
An “expert” who cannot be verified / no other publications.
No dates, data, or links to the original source.

CARD I2 — SIFT algorithm (4 steps)

S — STOP: interrupt the impulse to share.
I — INVESTIGATE the source: check who publishes and what others say about them.
F — FIND better coverage: look for other credible coverage.
T — TRACE back: return to the original recording/quote/photo.

CARD I3 — Verification checklist (Source/Image/Author/Dates)

Source: “About us” page, contact, company registry / institution?
Author: full name, other texts?
Dates: is it current? is the photo/video from years ago?
Image/video: reverse search, signs of editing/AI (hand/background artifacts).
Other coverage: who else reports this? (min. 2 independent sources)

CARD I4 — Fact-checking report (1 page)

Title of the claim being checked

What did we check (the claim)?

Which sources did we compare?

What is the original context?

Conclusion

true false unclear

Advice for the reader

I‑RAP RUBRIC — Report assessment (0–2 pts/criterion, max 8)

Criterion	1	2
Clarity (what was checked and how)	1	2
Sources (min. 2 independent / indicates the original)	1	2
Conclusion (clear, justified)	1	2
Advice (what to do before you share)	1	2

Interpretation: 0–3 — starting out; 4–6 — solid; 7–8 — very good.

Additional materials: sample HEADLINE cards (fictional)

Note: the headlines below are fictional and are used for practice only. They do not describe real events.

#01

New public transport timetable from 1 March — check changes on the operator’s website

#02

Warning: fake “parcel surcharge” SMS messages are back — don’t click links, verify the sender’s number

#03

A “today” photo shows a snowstorm in July — people share it without checking the date

#04

URGENT! Everyone with a phone must disable this feature by midnight — or they’ll lose their account

#05

A blogger claims: “This one trick will grow your account 100x in 24h” — no sources or data

#06

Report: energy prices in 2026 — offer comparison and data sources (links in the description)

#07

An anonymous “expert” warns that tomorrow “all bank accounts will be frozen” — no verifiable information

#08

A new app supposedly steals photos from your gallery — check the developer’s statements and independent media

#09

The video from a “protest in Poland” is from 2017 — see the full context and recording date

#10

The city launches online public consultations — how to submit feedback step by step

#11

Today only: free vouchers for everyone — just enter your PESEL (national ID number) in the form

#12

Guide: how to spot phishing in 60 seconds (checklist and examples)

#13

A photo allegedly from the disaster site has odd hands and artifacts — possibly an AI-generated image

#14

An institution publishes a correction to earlier information — link to the statement

#15

“You won’t believe what they did!” — a headline with no date and no source, just a screenshot

#16

Calendar of public holidays and important administrative deadlines — link to official announcements