3 ms·

>Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts. Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible sourc

by fnovd 10y ago

>Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts. Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.

jacquesm 10y ago
Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this point, you seem to want to discredit it based on the source I simply withhold my judgment until there is more information about this)
- fnovd 10y ago
  How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources. See also: watergate.
    - fnovd 10y ago
      An anonymous source is vetted by the news agency which reports on the story. You're trusting the news agency to do their due diligence and think critically about the information they are given. The source is rarely completely anonymous as their identity is known by the news agency. If the NYT says they got a tip from an anonymous source about Assange, it means more to me than if my neighbor Steve says HE got a tip from an anonymous source.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on and sources are now able to post stuff directly without having to go through intermediaries like the established press. This causes all kinds of havoc and requires more skepticism on the part of the consumer but that does not diminish the fact that it might be true and that the timing is interesting. Now chances are better than even (a lot better) that this is false, but so far it fits the facts as good (and in some cases better) than most other theories about why this is happening other than the one about today being the day of the 'interview' with the Swedish representatives.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Multiple accounts, particularly ones which are 1) detailed and 2) generally support one another, are a good start. Even if you don't know who the individual reporters are. As an example, the UNHCR follows a similar protocol when investigating reports of atrocities. The individual reporters, while not fully anonymous, frequently have no previous basis to assess credibility. If their stories generally correspond, you've got an indication of truth. If the stories differ on material points, there are problems. The story of Susannah from the Book of Daniel (Bible or Torah) has an excellent early exemplar of this: the stories of two claimed witnesses differed materially in the description of a crucial tree, impeaching their credibility.
- SamBam 10y ago
  > Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating? The man literally told people he rescheduled his election-changing news conference from a balcony to a middle-of-the-night webcast, because he thought a sniper was going to kill him on the balcony. As if this was likely. Then it turned out his election-changing news conference was an advert for his book. The man is great at marketing himself.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Because he could easily prove his internet access wasn't shut down by sending out a message to the contrary. Also the Ecuadorian embassy could deny it. Absent any proof that he actually has access I'm going on the assumption that he does not because that is what they claim. Now whether or not it really is a state actor (could be Ecuador!), Assange's laptop frying the network card or some other reason why he hasn't got access (didn't pay the phone bill?) is up for grabs.
    - SamBam 10y ago
      What? He claims he had his internet cut off. You say the proof is that he hasn't sent out a message to the contrary. Ummm.... Do you understand what I'm saying when I say I don't believe Assange when he says his internet is cut off? Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the Ecuadorian embassy has a policy against making any sort of statements about Assange.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        His internet is cut off or it isn't. Claiming it is when it is not so will undermine his credibility for no gain at all. Note that Wikileaks is making the claim not Assange and they are not the same entity (they'd have to, given that Assange can't go online). Now, it could all be not true but what would be the point of lying about this when the truth will come out regardless?
        SamBam 10y ago

by fnovd 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source. Possible facts: Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this point, you seem to want to discredit it based on the source I simply withhold my judgment until there is more information about this)

fnovd 10y ago
How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter. And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources. See also: watergate.
  - fnovd 10y ago
    An anonymous source is vetted by the news agency which reports on the story. You're trusting the news agency to do their due diligence and think critically about the information they are given. The source is rarely completely anonymous as their identity is known by the news agency. If the NYT says they got a tip from an anonymous source about Assange, it means more to me than if my neighbor Steve says HE got a tip from an anonymous source.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on and sources are now able to post stuff directly without having to go through intermediaries like the established press. This causes all kinds of havoc and requires more skepticism on the part of the consumer but that does not diminish the fact that it might be true and that the timing is interesting. Now chances are better than even (a lot better) that this is false, but so far it fits the facts as good (and in some cases better) than most other theories about why this is happening other than the one about today being the day of the 'interview' with the Swedish representatives.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Multiple accounts, particularly ones which are 1) detailed and 2) generally support one another, are a good start. Even if you don't know who the individual reporters are. As an example, the UNHCR follows a similar protocol when investigating reports of atrocities. The individual reporters, while not fully anonymous, frequently have no previous basis to assess credibility. If their stories generally correspond, you've got an indication of truth. If the stories differ on material points, there are problems. The story of Susannah from the Book of Daniel (Bible or Torah) has an excellent early exemplar of this: the stories of two claimed witnesses differed materially in the description of a crucial tree, impeaching their credibility.
SamBam 10y ago
> Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true) What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating? The man literally told people he rescheduled his election-changing news conference from a balcony to a middle-of-the-night webcast, because he thought a sniper was going to kill him on the balcony. As if this was likely. Then it turned out his election-changing news conference was an advert for his book. The man is great at marketing himself.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Because he could easily prove his internet access wasn't shut down by sending out a message to the contrary. Also the Ecuadorian embassy could deny it. Absent any proof that he actually has access I'm going on the assumption that he does not because that is what they claim. Now whether or not it really is a state actor (could be Ecuador!), Assange's laptop frying the network card or some other reason why he hasn't got access (didn't pay the phone bill?) is up for grabs.
  - SamBam 10y ago
    What? He claims he had his internet cut off. You say the proof is that he hasn't sent out a message to the contrary. Ummm.... Do you understand what I'm saying when I say I don't believe Assange when he says his internet is cut off? Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the Ecuadorian embassy has a policy against making any sort of statements about Assange.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      His internet is cut off or it isn't. Claiming it is when it is not so will undermine his credibility for no gain at all. Note that Wikileaks is making the claim not Assange and they are not the same entity (they'd have to, given that Assange can't go online). Now, it could all be not true but what would be the point of lying about this when the truth will come out regardless?
      - SamBam 10y ago