This blog tries to fact check 'is the post reliable', with their consent.
(Warning: this pin is gonna be a long one; I believe in laying out my positions and thought processes openly and clearly to prevent misinformation; I ask in return that if you have any comments, queries, questions or concerns, that you do the same. Preventing misinformation cannot be done by summary sentences and exploring the nuances takes time.)
Where appropriate or requested, I will attempt to find out the background of the sources used, to try and identify and disclose any bias, controversy, conflict of interest, or untrustworthy or manipulative content.
I will try to act in good faith, and I will always assume that a point made by is-the-post-reliable, an OP, a source listed, or someone interacting with me is made in good faith until proven beyond reasonable doubt. I also ask that if you interact with me, that you do the same
I will myself try to be transparent, accurate, and honest, and will not knowingly mislead with my posts. However, I cannot guarantee the accuracy of what I post. I am after all, only human. In the event that I am wrong, I welcome corrections (provided they are in a constructive manner).
I will summarise each check with a 'meta-rating'. The aim of this is not to further add to an opinion on the post one way or the other, but to shed light on how sure you can be that is-the-post-reliable's conclusions are reliable themselves.
The ratings are as follows, from best to worst:
RELIABLE
The information and points expressed by is-the-post-reliable can themselves be relied on; they are well-cited and sourced and are relatively free of bias, misinformation, and conflicts of interest. The points can to a reasonable (but not legal) position be held as true.
PARTIALLY RELIABLE
The sources used by is-the-post-reliable can be relied on somewhat. They may not be adequately sourced, or may be sourced in parts and infer from undetermined sources other parts. They may have some bias towards the subject, may have limited conflicts of interest, but are still in good faith and are not attempting to mislead, deceive, or otherwise misrepresent the truth. Whilst some of the facts may be true, others may require further investigation to sufficiently prove their trustworthiness.
UNABLE TO VERIFY INTEGRITY
I have been unable to find enough information concerning the origin of the sources used to determine whether the sources are suitably free from bias, conflicts of interest etc. I still assume that they have been made in good faith, but I cannot tell one way or the other whether these should be relied upon. Most of the facts expressed are only partially reliable, and whilst the facts are not downright untrue, there is little to no proof that any of the facts are reasonably true.
UNRELIABLE
The sources used by is-the-post-reliable are likely biased, may have undisclosed conflicts of interest, may be misrepresenting the truth, or may be involved in downright manipulation of the facts in an effort to mislead others.
They may be relying on false assumptions, commit multiple logical fallacies, overly extend logic, or simply not cover the original points being discussed.
The majority of the sources are probably not acting in good faith, or do not properly or logically cite anything which may lead a reasonable person to believe that they are true.
The majority of the sources fail to establish relevant facts beyond reasonable doubt, and do not sufficiently and truthfully cover the conclusions drawn from them. Whilst there are likely elements of truth buried deep down, they are hidden behind so many layers of false premises that they are either completely distorted, do not apply to the situation, or could be found more logically elsewhere.
The sources should not be trusted and other sources should be looked upon to determine the truth of the original point.
If there's a specific post you'd like me to research the source background of, you're welcome to send me an ask. I will respond when I am able.





















