>Information is either true or false, the source isn't really relevant, all that matters are the facts.
Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.
Yes, sources matter if all you do is to look at the information and it's source. But if you look at the information and you can find independent verification of rejection of the information then you can form a conclusion that is a lot stronger than just speculation based on info+source.
Possible facts:
Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true)
Assange has been extradited (status unknown at this point, you seem to want to discredit it based on the source I simply withhold my judgment until there is more information about this)
> Assange has had his internet access shut down (probably true)
What basis do you have for the (probably true) rating?
The man literally told people he rescheduled his election-changing news conference from a balcony to a middle-of-the-night webcast, because he thought a sniper was going to kill him on the balcony. As if this was likely. Then it turned out his election-changing news conference was an advert for his book.
Because he could easily prove his internet access wasn't shut down by sending out a message to the contrary. Also the Ecuadorian embassy could deny it.
Absent any proof that he actually has access I'm going on the assumption that he does not because that is what they claim.
Now whether or not it really is a state actor (could be Ecuador!), Assange's laptop frying the network card or some other reason why he hasn't got access (didn't pay the phone bill?) is up for grabs.
1. Because it makes him seem like a martyr to the cause without him actually having to do anything, just like when he implied he couldn't give a speech on the embassy balcony because Clinton's forces were about to kill him with a sniper rifle. (http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/wikileaks-huge-hillary-a...) ...so he had his followers tune into a 3AM webcast instead, which ended up just being a promo sales pitch for his book. He is excellent at marketing.
2. The truth will not "come out regardless" if he was lying. It's very hard to prove a negative. Even if the embassy puts out an announcement saying "As far as we know, his internet is fine," Wikileaks can just say "The embassy is in cahoots with the Americans," or "It was cut earlier, and sources told me it was the gubbment." No one will care much at that point, his martyrdom point will have been made.
Time will tell. You could be right, you could be not. I believe that if Assange says something that is not truthful that reflects bad on Ecuador (one possible explanation is that Ecuador blocked his access) that they would make a statement if what he said was incorrect. And I'd believe them over Assange if that's what it came to.
How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source? If you're ignoring who presents the facts and who presents the verification, how do you determine whether or not the reporter of the verification is independent from the reporter of the fact? Sources matter.
And there is no such thing as a "probably true possible fact". There are facts and there are allegations.
> How can you tell if a piece of information is independently verified if you don't know the source?
By your reckoning no anonymous source can ever be credible. Some pretty interesting stuff has come out over the years from anonymous sources and turned out - retrospectively - to have been accurate and likely to have been a leak by an insider. Given that nobody is ever (Snowden excepted) to go on the record about an imminent operation from inside some government agency the only way such information could ever come out is through anonymous sources.
An anonymous source is vetted by the news agency which reports on the story. You're trusting the news agency to do their due diligence and think critically about the information they are given. The source is rarely completely anonymous as their identity is known by the news agency.
If the NYT says they got a tip from an anonymous source about Assange, it means more to me than if my neighbor Steve says HE got a tip from an anonymous source.
Whether you like it or not, the world has moved on and sources are now able to post stuff directly without having to go through intermediaries like the established press.
This causes all kinds of havoc and requires more skepticism on the part of the consumer but that does not diminish the fact that it might be true and that the timing is interesting.
Now chances are better than even (a lot better) that this is false, but so far it fits the facts as good (and in some cases better) than most other theories about why this is happening other than the one about today being the day of the 'interview' with the Swedish representatives.
Multiple accounts, particularly ones which are 1) detailed and 2) generally support one another, are a good start. Even if you don't know who the individual reporters are.
As an example, the UNHCR follows a similar protocol when investigating reports of atrocities. The individual reporters, while not fully anonymous, frequently have no previous basis to assess credibility. If their stories generally correspond, you've got an indication of truth. If the stories differ on material points, there are problems.
The story of Susannah from the Book of Daniel (Bible or Torah) has an excellent early exemplar of this: the stories of two claimed witnesses differed materially in the description of a crucial tree, impeaching their credibility.
Absurd. Of course your sources matter. A credible source is more believable than an incredible source. Ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? Looking only at the material presented and not at the presenter of the material is only giving you part of the picture.