On 10/10/06, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
I disagree. Lots of editors disagree. Because, if you look closely, the reliability of a source has more to do with who is writing it and their reputation, how well they are trusted, and the nature of the subject matter, than defining something simply by what medium it appeared in.
Sure...
Just tell me *how* can you verify *who* is the author of a USENET post.
-- Jossi
As various major media plagarism and faked story sources show, you can't assume the accuracy or authorship of a "reliable media" source either.
Though forging Usenet headers and From: addresses was not unknown (I'm responsible for a lot of April 1 Usenet pranks), as a general rule, if a well known Usenet user, from their normal account, and if they didn't show up shortly later in-thread to claim it was a forgery, then you can generally assume it was legit.
The specific details of a post can be subjected to further research if one is in doubt. Even the best forgeries were exceptionally difficult to make completely transparent, after the early 90s once nntp server openness and header tracking info started to tighten up.