This issue runs through any diary that uses any outside sourcing. I think we all already have a consenious on main stream media, (both good and bad). But there are freelance reporters and investigators that have been around a long time, with varing track records. And quoting Jhon Doe's web site means nothing to me if I have never heard of it or been there.
Sure I could
How does one know that reputation of a sourse that you don't know, or only know in passing?
Surly on of the regulars can write a diary or series on comonly quoted sources, (on Kos,) and their track records and history.
I am not expecting to get Every source,or even a major fraction, but the 80-20 rule is in full effect. A small number of sources are quoted over and over again, and more unusual sources pop up only a few times, or maybe only in one post.
So, a new Wiki entry or other long term list of common sorces could be slowly compiled so that I can look up a source and find out if they are trustworthy or not.
We all are well aware that some sources are gold, and some are lead, but I can't google every single source to find out if they add to a diary or take away from it.
It would be best if regular diary writers read the list and stuck to acknowledged sources, or added there own entry to the list if they have a favorite that is not listed yet.
It would certainly increase my conedence in diaries that use sources that the community has faith in.
It would also allow me to not waste time on stuff that quotes sources from the bad reputation lists.