The title is from the article, it is not my title. I am only posting this because it's an indepth look into various aspects of the project.
Take from it what you will.
Apparently the author has contacted at least three people (two of them ex
employees) who have confirmed some of the allegations made by The
Escapist back in 2015.
Article -
https://imgur.com/a/WpXMe#KmIeXEA
Comments
I always have a problem with articles that say "We have evidence but can't show you for 'reasons'". You either have evidence or you don't, and until you present it, everything is baseless accusations. Same goes for the "anonymous tipsters". If it's as big as a sham as they are saying, why hide behind anonymity? If there is embezzlement on this scale, the FBI would love to sink their teeth into it.
It only got better when they were challenged on those ID badges the ex-employees presented as "proof" of employment.
Around the same time as these articles came out, Tech Raptor wrote an interesting article in regards to using anonymous sources: http://techraptor.net/content/escapist-opportunity-discuss-anonymous-sources
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There was only one person that used an ID badge, that person couldn't be verified so they didn't use their info anyhow.
From the vetting article
That techraptor article is about anonymous sources which is a million miles from anonymized sources (aka de-identification).
There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't want to be personally associated with information that might be made public.
And as I said it is entirely up other people if they want to read it. I'm not trying to push it on anybody.
I hadn't seen this before (the print is dated July '16) and from the small bit that I read thought it was well written, I have no idea how much is well written or researched.
Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.
Have fun
Derek Smart
Derek Smart
Derek Smart
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Their usually not very happy about it, and tend to have bad things to say about their host.
Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.
Anonymized sources, on the other hand, would be where you have verified the people giving you the tips to ascertain their validity before persuing the matter any further and would typically be used where you have limited access to investigate the source's claims.
to remove identifying information from (something, such as computer data) so that the original source cannot be known : to make (something) anonymous
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anonymize
Here some more interesting reading for you
http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I think that you're giving too much credit here, though. As was mentioned earlier, if that anonymous source was vetted through editors and legal then that's one thing. However, that wasn't even done at The Escapist, since there was no follow-up posted. When the sources were called into question, then said they vetted them and that they have high integrity, then they faded into the shadows like it never happened.
I would LOVE to believe that someone did some good ole hard-nosed investigative journalism these days. However, my guess is that's simply not the case. Why do it anyway? Have you not invested a shit ton of time into a response on here only to have anyone and everyone dispute it? So regardless whether you're wrong or right, you're in a constant state of wrong AND right. It's the Internet, a great resource for wasting time and not making any actual progress.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
LOL I been saying the same thing from the beginning, the polar opposite of making things up as I go, just goes to show your lack of comprehension.
Having sources that have their identity verified but protected is different from the connotation of the words 'anonymous sources'. Anybody should be able to see that.
The person(s) have confirmed their identtity to their interviewer, they have been verified by various criteria, they have confirmed their place of employment (past or present) etc.
That is the opposite of anonymous in this situation because we now know it is not just 3 or 4 people phoning in, saying the same thing without being verifiable.
Just because you guys need a wikipedia entry to define things you don't understand or are unable to see parallels between situations does not mean that we all need that kind of help.
You guys and your hang-ups over words, your literality really makes me laugh.
The sources are anonymized to the public, therefore they are anonymized sources. How is it even possible to not get your head around such a basic concept?
The sources are not anonymous to the person or persons that have put the article together. By claiming they are anonymous sources is to imply a negative connotation as to the validity of their information or to imply a lack of due diligence on the part of the author(s).
That is why we do not use the words anonymous sources in this context. Instead we use the words anonymized sources, the handlers of all the data have access to the indentity of their sources. The viewers (readers) of that data do not.
Is that explained in a basic enough manner for you people?
"Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.
Anonymized sources, on the other hand, would be where you have verified the people giving you the tips to ascertain their validity before persuing the matter any further and would typically be used where you have limited access to investigate the source's claims."
If you're going to talk like you're some kind of an expert and make assumptions of what us foolish plebeians believe the word anonymous to mean, at least take the time to learn the meaning of the big words you're going to use.
Now thats whats funny
anonymize = to make something anonymous
It's that simple
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Ok, now you're just being awkward.
Handler = person that receives and organises the data.
Viewer = person that views the data which the handler passes to them.
To the handler the data is not anonymous.
To the viewer the data is anonymous.
The author requires the data to not be anonymous so they can corroborate and validate the information. They are quite possibly legally required not to pass the identity of their sources on due to data protection and are only able to do so if the source waives their right to anonymity.
The viewer is irrelevant in this context because otherwise you are asking for the authors to basically dox their sources just because you don't believe the information you are reading. A nonsensical situation to ask for.
But it was. How many times has this link been posted where they document how their sources were vetted?
Four other sources (CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7) initially contacted Lizzy via email on or before Sept. 27 The emails, numbering 32 from these four individuals, were forwarded to our EiC and Publisher, who passed that info by our legal department. It was cleared and we pursued individual personal contacts beginning the following day.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo
I don't want to deal with suppositions, we know that they didn't print part 2 of the article but we also know that they didn't retract any of the original articles. Whatever people want to draw from that is entirely up to them.