Communication Overtones Comments
Focus exclusively on what they are saying and what their motivation is.
That's all.
- Amanda
This is a really interesting question with no clear answer. I mean, I suppose I try to look at everything as a piece of embellished truth, for entertainment's and reader's sake, and then read with a grain of salt--cause who can ever sort it all out?
I learned critical thinking skills from my Dad and they have served me well throughout my career, so I like K's answer.
Knowing motive is not always possible, so I think that it is better to understand your own motives and expectations. Oh, and to trust your intuition about what you see and adjust accordingly.
Mr Holtz and I have come to an agreement on how to avoid confusion. I am the Original Shel, because I am older. He is the Other Shel because he is not. Shel Silverstein has agreed to remain dead and therefor stay out of the fracas.
Consistency is the scale tipper for me. But Chapel makes a good point of also analyzing the motives for the information. Overall to really trust a source of info you have to have a relationship with them, otherwise, they could just be feeding you lies.
I don't think there is room for any other Shels in the blogosphere. So, if your name is Shel out there, maybe a fake name is better for you 
Rich, I agree that familiarity and consistency are one way to judge. In fact, that is why I think blogging provides such a good opportunity (as frought as it is with risk) for many companies. It personalizes the ivory tower, the "evil" corporation. Think Microsoft...and Robert Scoble.
However, as cozy as all of this may feel to those of us who have participated, it is uncharted territory for the majority of people What about the Google seekers who dip in for a look and then pop back out again? How do they judge what they have seen?
For those one time searchers there is obviously no easy solution for guranteeing authority and truth. Eventually i think there could be a rating system like rapleaf that will be known as the "premier" ranker of accuracy and authority. But until then getting quick accurate info from the web will continue to be a risky business.
But then again I think there will always be a thrill involved in trying new sources of information - it can be compared to the whole situatuation of underground versus mainstream. Mainstream is popular - underground is usually new and fresh with different perspectives but less accuracy. Just like MSM and Bloggers.
I also think that services will spring up that aggregate information for you, be it from bloggers and others.
Actually, there is already a service like that mentioned by Shel and Neville in a recent podcast. I think they picked up Steve Rubel.
Commenting by HaloScan
