|Posted: 16 January 2007 at 10:38pm | IP Logged | 12
You would think that if such a site was to have much credibility, it would be able to catagorize it's information and qualify it depending upon the source.
For example, if the actual subject of the topic were to respond, then that person's response would be given the highest priority.
For example, for a topic like the Catholic Church, the Pope himself (if he decided to post a summary) might be given more creedence than say a post from the Anti-Catholic League.
Or a synopsis about Shakespear from the Dean of Shakespearean liturature from Oxford might have more creedence than the editor of Teen Beat.
But there appears to be no such regulation.
On the other hand, and as devil's advocate, there is something thrilling and exciting about complete freedom of expression and faceless libel... sort of like watching a car wreck.