First off, thank you to everyone that had something to say regarding our second Dead Linger article. As we’ve said many, many times before, TechRaptor is new to this and we are still learning. Thank you for pointing out our mistake so that we can avoid it in the future. This was something we overlooked, which is no excuse, and we will not be doing it again.
When I first looked over the article, I praised it, but not for the right reasons. I was looking at the work our writer put into it, recognizing the effort that went into putting it all together. I spent more time evaluating the article itself, rather than a more intense discussion of the sourcing and the value it added.
We of course considered the value of the anonymous source, their motivations for wanting to be anonymous, and other related matters. Where we failed, significantly, was in the evaluation of the information provided. Most of it, as many have correctly surmised, is near impossible to validate and becomes a case of putting the word of one against another. In other words, we provided a platform for opinion for anonymous sources when we really should not have.
To that end, we recognize that our Ethics Policies seem to be missing a discussion of Anonymous Sources that we plan to have added to it very soon. We’re not opposed to using Anonymous Sources, but will be enacting a more rigorous process for having their use.
Regardless of anonymity though, we recognize that much of what was quoted, and the information that was provided, should not have been used. Whether it is true or not is nearly impossible for any of us to tell, except for the involved parties. Rather than play into a match between what we recognize may be disgruntled employees and an employer, we are going to remove ourselves, as we had no business being there in the first place.
The first article will also be amended.There is some speculation and opinion we should not have in there. It falls into a similar pitfall as the second Dead Linger article in that part of the anonymous source was used for pure opinion - something that will not happen again on TechRaptor.
However, much of that information in the first report is still grounded in fact and brings up many questions that TechRaptor would like to see answered. Questions regarding those sort of issues will be what we direct at Geoff if he is inclined to speak with us.
Thank you all again for pointing it out and we hope that we can do better in the future.
Also, here is a link to the removed article: https://archive.is/aLBSh