Why We Don’t Cover Rumors
In TidBITS, we limit ourselves to that which is actually known (and hopefully useful). Why? Because trafficking in rumors adds unnecessarily to the hubbub of our lives - and now we have some numbers to back that up. The Stupid Apple Rumors site tracked rumors on numerous different Apple-related Web sites and found that, overall, the rumors are false more than 75 percent of the time. Or, to put it another way, they're mostly just making stuff up. We prefer better plot lines and character development in our fiction.
And for those who asked, TidBITS doesn't show up at all (as reporting on rumors) and Macworld is statistically insignificant.
Phew! Nice to know the numbers support us. :-)
…which is why I read TidBits (and Macworld), and not most of those sites mentioned. There is already enough information in the world to digest without adding false information to the mix.
Your careful and honest style makes the information you do publish more valuable and enjoyable.
However, I remember that in the early days of TidBITS you often used the attribution Pythaeus (aka [email protected]) for anonymously sourced info. Back in those times when news spread in simpler and slower ways (e.g., MacWeek), that was a classy way to acknowledge unofficial info that we wouldn't have heard otherwise.
Now that any idiot can spread rumors on the net (and most do), I miss those Pythaeus appearances and the responsible way you handled them. But your current approach is an excellent one. Thanks.
Oh, those were the good old days, when rumors were actually well-sourced and clearly labeled. I still cannot reveal who Pythaeus was (and the name was used for several people over time), but suffice to say that pretty much everything we learned from that avenue was accurate. :-)