When posting stories to DU, how much certainty should one have?

[benburch]

[fooj]

1. Credibility is key!

:kick:

[blondeatlast]

3. Great minds think alike. nt

[MADem]

8. Be willing to fess up if ya feck up, for sure...n/t

[blondeatlast]

2. One source is fine--if reasonably objective and credible. nt

[JuniperLea]

4. Fool me once, shame on...

Fool me... we'll never get fooled again!







Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Steven_S]

5. post whatever you want...

someone will call bushit quick enough, or let you know the source in not reliable.

[Ron Green]

6. This is why I always post threads about the assholitude of certain

of our "leaders" and pundits. I'm sure of these things.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. Sometimes I post something if I'm having trouble finding a second source..

DU rocks, and someone will either come up with another source, or we can debunk it quickly. :)

[SmokingJacket]

9. I think a double check is sufficient.

I mean, you don't need a full bibliography for every post, but it makes sense to find a corroborating source.

[stillcool]

10. always post the source...

is my motto. From there it's up to individual minds.

[brook]

15. I agree.

Credibility was the reason I came to DU in the first place. If I have doubts about the link, then I'll try to confirm (or debunk) on my own.

[Fridays Child]

11. I think anything should be fair game...

...as long as unverifiable items are clearly labeled as such, up front. There are a couple of authors whose stuff turns up here, for example, who really have some credibility issues. Paul Thompson and Wayne Madsen come to mind. In an ideal world "CHB" or "Madsen," respectively, would precede the subject lines of these posts. I don't like clicking on a thread and getting half way through the snippets only to figure out that it's a Thompson or Madsen article.

[Inland]

12. I agree, with the caveat that

some topics are so sensitive that a higher standard should be kept.. Slanders, guilt or innocence, grand jury proceedings, shit about people's family not in the public eye. But still, it's going to be left up to the poster.

[onehandle]

13. My rule of thumb -----> If it's good enough for Free Republic.....

...it's bullshit.

[ismnotwasm]

14. I think reasonably certain

I hardly ever start posts, but I read a lot, and I've noticed that those who post stories without credibility to back them up get in a bit of trouble quick. (Usually-- there are a couple of less-than-stellar sources that can start a huge thread just because it's a subject dear to our liberal hearts.)

There are a lot of people on DU who have expertise in one area or another who don't hesitate to back their shit up if presented with shaky or unverifiable "facts"