slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Usenet is not a fixed and relied-upon source like a peer-reviewed journal, but in the *vast* majority of cases, people are who they say they are and made their posts.
You can't know this. Most people who post do so anonymously, and even if you know their real names, what does that tell you? They're not credible, published sources just because they post to Usenet.
It really depends on the era. If you have a John Mashey or Erik Fair posting from 1983, it's almost certainly authentic and authoritative (the kremvax hoax of 1984 was the first time that most of us were even aware that forged postings were possible). Conversely, anybody can print a credible-looking book these days, so one's analysis of believability has to be based on context and content, not just the mechanism of transport.
Stan