Issues of Credibility in Online Authoring

I read this article: Sony finally realizes what is needed, a price-cut after seeing it had hit the front page of Digg. Please take note that the information presented in this article's title indicates Sony has actually come to realize their pricing mistake and has released some sort of press stating their intentions or the author is a privileged member of Sony's staff and is, in fact, releasing this information to the press himself.

Anything other than this would be speculation, right? Please take note of the sources cited at the end of the post, it is important.

At the very least the article's title is misleading, intentionally or otherwise. At most, the author is citing sources from other "blogs" or websites that maintain no level of credibility themselves. If you have read through the article it is, in actuality, an opinion piece.

The issue is credibility. I don't care what anyone says, Wikipedia is not a valid source of credible information. It is a great idea and a wonderful place to become familiar with general facts and information. Blogs fall into a category far below Wikipedia.

This brings me back to a scene from Thank You For Smoking!, in which the main character, a tobacco lobbyist, speaks with a class of young students. The scene generally covers the idea that you cannot believe everything people tell you (specifically, parents) unless, your mommy is a scientist, researcher or doctor, in the case of the movie.

If claims such as these are going to be made, most likely for sensationalism, and considering that most readers would simply believe most of what they read without being even remotely critical, then it falls to the authors to provide information to prove their credibility. As users become accustomed to finding valid citations any author that does not provide competent sources, or is a credible source of information themselves, will be discarded. All of the buzz and rumor-mongering surrounding Apple products, most of all, needs to stop. Simply stating that your anonymous source is trustworthy should never be taken seriously. It comes down to a slight variation of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf".

Ironically, I cited a blog myself. However, I am not making a claim about a major corporation's secretive actions.