By: Angie Herrington, Senior Consultant

Several years ago, I wrote a blog post about Primary Sources and why it’s important to verify our research with factual (primary) and not interpretive (secondary) data. I still start with an information aggregator or lookup source as a jumping off point from the many resources available to us. Keep in mind those vendors are pulling information from several other primary and secondary sources and aggregating the data into one convenient place. Although helpful it can’t fully confirm if James Smith is the same as Jim, Jimmy, Jamie, Jr., or Sr. It also might not find their $100 million home held under a holding company. It takes a real person like you to evaluate the information and provide context. We need to find the primary source so we don’t give our gift officers and leadership inaccurate information that might potentially embarrass them (and us) when they visit a donor.

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

A refresher on the difference between a primary and secondary source:

• Primary sources are best described as direct, first-hand accounts. They are verifiable, factual and not interpretive, and transparent as to how the data was collected. (Spoiler alert: Generative AI isn’t a primary source)
• Secondary sources are one step removed. Although they often quote or use primary sources, the information might include another person’s analysis or interpretations of that data. These sources should still transparently explain which primary sources were used and to any limitations or bias.

Generative AI

So why am I bringing this up again? AI. It’s long been part of our daily lives for 70 years in one form or another, including its use by vendors. Today’s concern is Generative AI – machine learning models providing new content influencing people’s beliefs and decision-making. You should already know about its tendency to provide misinformation and disinformation, privacy and copyright violations, data provenance, bias, economic and workforce impacts, hallucinations, ethical and environmental issues, and on and on.

When Wikipedia launched in 2001, we spent years questioning its accuracy and fearing the rumored WikiKraken. I eventually learned to use it as another jumping off point like I do other secondary resources and verify the results. Wikipedia has footnotes with links to where volunteers have contributed or edited its content (sometimes humorously), which can be reviewed under the page’s revision history. Keep in mind a lot of those footnotes are out of date or need citations making it ALWAYS important to doublecheck.

With the popularity of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, and others it’s tempting to assume the results as fact and then copy and paste something that does the work for us in seconds. Employers love this time and money saving idea but are quickly realizing the hard way that you can’t replace a human’s pesky critical thinking with a machine. Chatbots are one or more steps removed and although they might quote or use primary resources, the information includes analysis or interpretations that are frequently inaccurate. It’s important to treat them like any other secondary source and cross-check the information from multiple sources to ensure its accuracy and reliability.

I’m not going to tell you to not use Generative AI, but I am going to tell you to not rely on it or take it for granted that it’s fact. We’re too far past claiming blissful ignorance when it comes to its results. Information you are evaluating during your research must be transparent and verifiable. Humans can’t avoid bias – online, database aggregators (now providing their own interpretive analysis), and even you and me. What we can do is find the original source and continue proving ourselves as valuable prospect development professionals with accountability to the best of our ability.

If you do choose to use AI (as one of several tools for your research process), follow your organization’s policies and review Apra’s Ethics in AI for Fundraising Toolkit.

Research and Suggested Primary Sources

In my previous blog post, I also suggested resources you can use if you don’t have access to a vendor’s product, unable to find what you’re looking for, and to confirm information you already have.

• Real Estate – Search a county’s assessor’s office by name and the mailing address.
• Foundations – I will never fall off my 20-plus year soap box to ALWAYS rely on the 990 filings and/or foundation’s website. The summarized information you get from a product frequently misses important grants and might not include the most recent year.
• Public Companies and Stockholdings – Double check the SEC filing itself for accuracy.
• Licensed Professionals – A state’s licensing board verification website frequently provides additional information such as education, employment history, and red flags.
• Corporations – Search by names on a Secretary of State’s website. Addresses and names can lead to other companies, holding companies, or entities which can lead to real estate and other helpful information.
• Giving – Simple searches on variations of a person’s name (and the spouse!) might find additional and/or more recent gifts, confirm missing or incorrect giving amounts, and articles or press releases with details about significant gifts to an organization.

If you can’t find a primary source, find other vendors and secondary sources to compare your results. Also, don’t ever forget or devalue the importance of critical thinking.