Reliable Information Quotes

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 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.

Examine by every means each thing how it is clear, neither putting greater faith in anything seen than in what is heard, nor in a thundering sound more than in the clear assertions of the tongue, nor keep from trusting any of the other members in which there lies means of knowledge, but know each thing in the way in which it is clear.

Wikipedia works because those who know the truth are usually more numerous and committed than those who believe in a falsehood.

A book cannot apologize for what people may think it should be. It has to be authoritative. That's what I want as a reader - I want to be confident that the book will do its job.

My inclination, as an old-school, classically trained journalist, is not to go with a story unless I have it hard. It's not good enough to say something based on rumors that were flying around.

Everybody should care about facts. That is something all of us should agree on.

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

A reporter is no better than his source of information.

Torture gives you reliable and unreliable information. That's the reason why most people in the world don't do it. So this idea that you have to torture people in order to protect national security is a false argument, and I reject it.

If you ever want to get the facts straight about me or the Batman, please write to the original source, myself, for the truth, instead of second guessing.

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood.

I'm reliable sources, I'll tell ya anything you want me to know.

I wouldn't write about something that I haven't experienced myself.

The problem is that there is no reliable source of information left, no way to accumulate trusted accounts of the plusses and minuses of any given political choice.

Don't believe a thing unless you hear from me directly because there's a lot of bad info going on out there.

Truth is the hardest substance in the world to pin down. But the one certainty is the awesome penalty exacted sooner or later from a society whose reporters stop trying.

Readable text and authority so that readers know how to spend - no matter how much information there is, I have the same number of minutes in my day, and I need to look to sources that I trust.

I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world.

My best stories come from well-placed sources who point me in the right direction.

I think smart aggregation is a service to readers. And we do it, too ... . Whether it's a politics page and you want Dan Balz to tell you what is he reading, what does he think are the smartest articles today on the elections or the primaries. So, I think aggregation is great ... . So I'm all for aggregation. And the more eyeballs we can get to our content, the better. We do want readers to be educated and to understand the difference between, what is a source that you can trust as opposed to just rumors out there. And the difference between just repurposing content and not crediting it.

Get in the habit of vetting your research as you go - particularly research conducted online. Verify facts from multiple reputable sources before you record them.

I don't believe Wikipedia about anything. I don't go there for anything but keywords.

Everything that you see in 'Unhinged' that's quoted can be verified as documented and corroborated.

The area we define as what Quora's good at is long-form text that's useful over time, and where you care about who wrote the text. Not that you need to be friends with them, just that they're someone trustworthy.