Abstract The information revolution brought with it information pollution. Information retrieval and extraction help us cope with abundant information from diverse sources. But some sources are of anonymous authorship, and some are of uncertain accuracy, so how can we determine what we should actually believe? Not all information sources are equally trustworthy, and simply accepting the majority view is often wrong. This paper develops a general framework for estimating the trustworthiness of information sources in an environment where multiple sources provide claims and supporting evidence, and each claim can potentially be produced by multiple sources. We consider two settings: one in which information sources directly assert claims, and a more realistic and challenging one, in which claims are inferred from evidence provided by sources, via (possibly noisy) NLP techniques. Our key contribution is to develop a family of probabilistic models that jointly estimate the trustworthiness of sources, and the credibility of claims they assert. This is done while accounting for the (possibly noisy) NLP needed to infer claims from evidence supplied by sources. We evaluate our framework on several datasets, showing strong results and significant improvement over baselines.