When using and communicating information about a crisis, be sure that the information you present is as accurate as possible.
You should therefore check all information you receive for accuracy, otherwise, there is a high risk of spreading rumours and falsehoods!
In such cases, other Twitter users can be asked to verify or falsify these messages and requested to post pictures of the scene of the event.
For the examples given other users already spontaneously debunked it, while some asked for sources.
You may be sent a link by a friend or co-worker, find one referenced in an article you read in a hardcopy newspaper, magazine, or newsletter, or through email services you have signed up for, such as Bio Med Net or Sci Quest's Sci Central newsletters, or come across them as you read posts in online forums, newsgroups, or email discussion lists.
Depending on the source, you may feel there is little or no reason to consciously assess the information, while other sites you will perform some type of assessment.
The document has been updated over time, notably thanks to the many Web authors who shared their own rationale and motivation for using Web Quality checking tools.
In early 2009 we asked the Web community if they thought there still was a strong motivation for validation.
Learning how to use validation effectively takes practice. Being present means giving all your attention to the person you are validating.
The original version was written by Nick Kew of WebÞing Ltd.
for their Site Valet service and he has generously donated it for our use.
During the response to Hurricane Sandy, Twitter users began posting tweets that claimed to be critical first-hand accounts of the situation on the ground, which were often retweeted hundreds of times.
The highly discussed inaccurate report that the NY Stock Exchange flood had flooded with three feet of water and the Con Edison power company was cutting off power was even covered by mainstream media as a factual report.