3 ms·

Is it normal to simply accept the word of an anonymous source for something so important? I genuinely don't know, anymore, but it doesn't seem like a good idea.

Is it normal to simply accept the word of an anonymous source for something so important? I genuinely don't know, anymore, but it doesn't seem like a good idea. I'd rather wait for a more thorough investigation. Especially when the story from these sources boils down to "Kevin was in charge of booting the NYSE App that morning, but he was late for work. He had a good excuse, though, he flaked! We'll have the chap straight up for lunch, no question". Edit: I also note that this piece is lacking the traditional "The NYSE did not respond to a request for comment".

itsoktocry 4y ago
>Is it normal to simply accept the word of an anonymous source for something so important? Anonymous means they aren't revealing the source, not that Bloomberg doesn't know who the sources is, or what they do.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  I know that. I am referring to you and I, the reader accepting the word of the anonymous source. Combined with the fact that they apparently did not ask for a comment from the NYSE before publishing this. Or if they did, they neglected to mention it.
  - maronato 4y ago
    We aren’t accepting the word of the anonymous source. We’re accepting Bloomberg’s word that the source is reliable.
    - adolph 4y ago
      Bloomberg's word: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19526348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19526348
    - bink 4y ago
      Some of us aren't "accepting" anything. We're just reading about a potential cause of an incident and speculating about how it could happen to us or could have been prevented. Just because we're reading this article and commenting here doesn't mean we just believe everything that we read. The post-mortem will come out soon enough and we'll read that and comment again.
reaperducer 4y ago
I don't know how Bloomberg works, but the New York Times has a very clear and public policy about using anonymous sources. There's usually a link to it in the middle or end of any story it publishes using an anonymous source. The Times isn't Bloomberg, but it might give you some insight into how these things work.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Is it normal to simply accept the word of an anonymous source for something so important? Anonymous means they aren't revealing the source, not that Bloomberg doesn't know who the sources is, or what they do.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
I know that. I am referring to you and I, the reader accepting the word of the anonymous source. Combined with the fact that they apparently did not ask for a comment from the NYSE before publishing this. Or if they did, they neglected to mention it.
- maronato 4y ago
  We aren’t accepting the word of the anonymous source. We’re accepting Bloomberg’s word that the source is reliable.
  - adolph 4y ago
    Bloomberg's word: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19526348 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19526348
  - bink 4y ago
    Some of us aren't "accepting" anything. We're just reading about a potential cause of an incident and speculating about how it could happen to us or could have been prevented. Just because we're reading this article and commenting here doesn't mean we just believe everything that we read. The post-mortem will come out soon enough and we'll read that and comment again.

reaperducer 4y ago

I don't know how Bloomberg works, but the New York Times has a very clear and public policy about using anonymous sources. There's usually a link to it in the middle or end of any story it publishes using an anonymous source. The Times isn't Bloomberg, but it might give you some insight into how these things work.