Whether you're writing a research paper for a class or trying to defend your opinion to somebody who believes differently than you, utilizing powerful, relevant sources is vital. Otherwise, people just spout half-baked ideas backed up by half-baked people.

Books
Internet sites
Newspapers
Personal interviews
Television and film
Academic journals
Live events
Et cetera...

Let's face it...if you're going to cite a source, your source needs to be worth a CRAAP.

A source from 1986 doesn't necessarily preclude itself from usefulness.

Researching Ancient Egyptian agricultural practices? 1986 is still very relevant.

Researching technology use in the classroom? 1986 is slightly outdated.

The question to ask yourself is, "Has there been significant change in this area since the article was written and published?"

Whatever information you're looking for, it's important to take into consideration whether or not your source is relevant to your topic.

NOTE: just because a source has information about your topic DOES NOT mean it's relevant to your topic.

For example: Ringling Brother's Circus may come up as a hit when you Google search "elephants", but it's highly unlikely that website will contain information relevant to an academic study of elephants' life-cycle.

You can use sources that don't list an author, but you have to know why there's no author. Research the source itself to see its credibility.

Don't automatically trust a source with an author, either. What's the author's credentials? Research them!

Likewise, a Ph. D. looks great, but a doctorate in economics has no authority about hurricane formation...

Also, user @poopy1111_yo_dawg COULD be a Ph. D., but that user could also be a hyperactive 4 year old.

Just because you found information in one place does NOT mean it's accurate.

Use the TRIANGULATION method; if you can find the same information from two other LEGITIMATE sources, you can safely assume the information is correct.

NEVER trust a source that cites itself to back up information...

Why did the author or organization publish the information?

If the source is trying to promote an idea or product, or persuade one thing is better than another, the source has an AGENDA with the information they present and cite. We must question that source because often times, information can be TWEAKED or SKEWED to support that side's point. The NRA and PETA are both huge groups that cite legitimate research, but they have an agenda; they're conclusions must be questioned.

If the source is non-profit, independent, and simply exists to share information, they are very trustworthy. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) isn't trying to sell anything, so they have no agenda.