Caveat Lector

I've been contemplating on how to verify the "Truth," lately. And coincidently, I ran into another reminder this morning when the Rev. Rob Pollock, from Vancouver, Canada, called my attention to a posting I made on April 15th, "Jewish View of the Catholic Church,". That post consisted of an article Sam Miller had written where he quoted misinformation from the magazine Sojourners that had also quoted misinformation attributed to PA prof Philip Jenkins, who said he never said it.

What am I talking about? Specifically, this quote:

"10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia."

When you think about it, 10% is an awful lot! This definitely should have been verified. It shouldn't have slipped by me. Mea Culpa!


So with the help of the ...ah...internet, I've developed some personal criteria to help me evaluate information I read on the "net." I read a lot. And most of it is on a computer. And most of that is "anonymous," unlike academic research, publications, books, etc., that have already been evaluated by scholars et al. But when reading instant news reports, or opinion sites (Huffington Post, Drudge, etc.)there are no filters. And because anyone can have a site or blog, postings of differing quality, written by authors from a wide range of authority, (or not) are available equally. Excellent resources reside along those more dubious.

Caveat Lector!

Hence, the Five True Criteria from The One True Faith:
Authorship: Do I know the author? If not, research his authenticity. Is this article/posting/ opinion, reasonable and realistic?
Spin: Is the information presented balanced and thoughtful? This may involve researching who the author works for, his agenda and other postings and the comments that may have been solicited from the post.
References: Check out all the references given. These may not be true, or may have been retracted.
If it's too good to be true, don't use it: if it can't be verified, no matter how much you want it, don't use it.
Would it be a good use of my time: ok, this is my personal caveat. Would this information be worth a meditation? Would my reflection on this information be a good use of my time?

If I had done # 3, I would have come across the questions and corrections this article solicited. Caveat Lector is on my bulletin board.

BTW, h/t to the John Hopkin's University's Evaluating Internet Information, where I got the idea of having criteria.

Lord, increase my perseverance to adhere to my principles and your commandments. I also humbly ask your grace to discern good from evil. Grant also that my writings be hopeful and never hurtful to anyone because I dedicate my cyberministry to you. I ask this through Christ, our Lord. Amen