Information Verification Quotes

We have freedom of speech, and anybody's idea can't be a fact.

I don't take anything that I read in the newspaper at face value on either side - from anybody.

We don't print the truth. We don't pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It's up to the public to decide what's the truth.

The thing that Wikipedia focuses on is not truth nor facts, it's reliable, verifiable information. And what we would say is that as the world's consensus changes about what is reliable, verifiable information, the information for us will change too. […] If Wikipedia had been around a couple hundred years ago we probably would have had an article that says that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that was what we understood to be true. […] So we're not really in the business of truth or facts, we're in the business of what is known, and what has been determined through consensus—scientific consensus or otherwise. And I think that that actually provides some clarity on how to understand what information you're looking at.

The sheer amount of information available weirdly encourages informational overconfidence … ‘evidence’ for any belief you have — I mean any belief — can be found on the internet.

Online journalism has always had a sourcing problem. From using unverified 'anonymous tips' to repeating whatever rumor or speculation people are chattering about, the general ethic is, 'We'll publish just about anything.'

The best protection for the people is not necessarily to believe everything people tell them.

Vetting and verifying information is one thing. Having our government sending out conflicting messages to the American people when conflict can be avoided is another.

My goal was never to withhold information; my goal was to make sure everything was accurate, and frequently it wasn't.

When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation.

“Google” is not a synonym for “research.”

This was a report from a single source. It was an established and reliable line of reporting. It was quoted from a senior Iraqi military officer in a position to know this information.

Now we have a whole separate supplier of data for Able Danger who's verifying that same information.

Everybody's saying, be skeptical of Wikipedia. That is true. They should also be skeptical of everything. We should all be critical consumers of the media.

I became a journalist because I didn't want to have to rely on the press for information... I only read it to make sure of whatever everyone else thinks is going on, because it's useful to know what people think is the news.

That's why we have journalists, for stats.

Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.

When a man wants to write a book full of unassailable facts, he always goes to the British Museum.

“One picture is worth a thousand words,” said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate it.

Don't believe everything you read in the trades.

Science doesn't care, by and large, what the answers are. It's only interested in getting the right answer. And journalism should be very much that way.

If information is true, if it can be verified, and if it's really important, the newspaper needs to be willing to take the risk associated with using unidentified sources.

Clearly, you can't believe everything you read in the press.

Bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Facts are your firewall against bias.

I don't trust news sources, and neither should other people. They should use them in the same way that they use medical opinions and get more than one on the important issues. Trust is the most precious thing you could possibly give to another person. But to institutions? Publications?