On 5/8/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
That's precisely the point: newspapers (and their websites) have a fact-checking infrastructure in place. A reporter writes a story, it's checked by the assigning editor, checked again by a copy editor, again by a page editor, and again by a proof reader, all of whom are looking for obvious legal and factual problems as well as style issues. Depending on the size of the newspaper, it might also be checked by a fact-checker. If it's a sensitive story, it might be looked at by the managing editor, the editor-in-chief, the publisher, the lawyers, and even the owners.
I challenged an editor to come up with checkable sources once. He flatly refused. Slim here went screaming off when I proposed deleting any material for which no source was given.
Seems the rules change if it's a mate.
We don't have the resources to do any of this, which is why we rely on sources that do. Usenet isn't one of them.
If it's a Usenet story, Usenet is a good source. You want to see who received Net-Kook of the Year award, there's no other source. Britannica is silent on the matter.
Just common sense, really.