A well-written article on purported "journalist" Mike Daisey who has since been disgraced when it was determined he took dramatic license to the extreme in his "reports" about Apple in China. He should have disclosed that he was dramatizing or that his monologue was inspired by true events but not that it was fact. It is interesting that I had this very same discussion with someone who writes for a major autistic organization about his refusal to disclose that he's using "gonzo journalism" in his pieces. I think that people should disclose - it is part of what an ethical writer does.
In a world where you can find anyone who says anything do you know how to sort out the truth?
How reliable is the source of the claim? Does the source make similar claims? Have the claims been verified by somebody else? Does this fit with the way the world works? Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? Where does the preponderance of evidence point? Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? Is the claimant providing positive evidence? Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
In 3 weeks I'll be heading to the Berkman center for an Open Education Grantee meeting as a person who provides feedback to the grantees. I'm very excited to meet many of the people who have been invited but also to learn and soak in (and share) everything. With the people who will gather, certainly, there will be an impact on the open education movement.