In Defense of Fact-Checking

In contemporary culture, civility's role is considerably misunderstood.  

To distinguish civil and uncivil statements and acts, one ought not impose a border by fiat.  The civil/uncivil demarcation shouldn't be imposed via humiliation, particularly when one has no persuasive argument.

Americans should demonstrate reluctance prior to lashing out at others--particularly prior to hurling insults impugning the character of people with whom we disagree.  Groundlessly attacking people's rectitude should be embarrassing; I am saddened by the omniscient mien of the aggressively offended.

Yesterday I noted that a featured speaker at Netroots Nation has published a dubious autobiographical paragraph.  Commenter JK misunderstands my post--and apparently didn't look very closely at the Rutgers Law page to which I linked. The page includes many students' names--not just the featured profiles--and each name's affiliation with Rutgers can be easily established.

Seeking to stigmatize inquisitiveness, a number of commenters suggest that to verify a featured speaker's self-representations constitutes 'creepy' conduct.  Balderdash.

This ethical point is not controversial:  Internet-based self-representations are fair game for fact-checking--and the predictable efforts to disparage fact-checkers should not be honored.  A Syrian lesbian blogger would still be at it today, absent non-sycophantic authentication.

JK asks why I decided to fact-check this person's bio.  The truth-seeking blogger need offer no justification for fact-checking this person as opposed to that person.  It is my prerogative upon what to focus my attention.  Were another writer to publish exclusively in response to my own public statements, I would welcome their contribution with open arms--and lash out only in reaction to substantive problems with their output.

Responding to Lindo:  I have contacted Rutgers University Law School--twice--but have not heard back from the institution.  John Lee's claim is of interest, but does not constitute a satisfactory basis upon which to accept Maxwell's claim--to have matriculated no later than 2008, to have taken only one brief break and to currently being an enrolled full-time student in the class of 2013.  (Six years?)

Perhaps Maxwell's claim is true.  Your fact-checker must cling to reasonable doubt, however--or he wouldn't be a very good fact-checker.  (I'll believe it when I've found evidence for it.)

Lizz Winstead also tries to denigrate skepticism--'Your behavior is disturbing.'  Pshaw.  We should examine the iffy autobiographical claims of public commentators.  Winstead's insistence that Maxwell is 'not someone who is a public figure' should offend Maxwell.

When published writers claim status-enhancing institutional affiliations, they deserve to be integrity-checked.  Winstead wants a culture of submission and credulity; we have an honest disagreement.