Actually, I'm just going to ignore you right now and just get into the whole "sourcing" thing, because I do notice one of your links (which actually features two of the listed alt "aliases" of Lydarkaon apparently arguing with each other? Does he do that, like to keep up pretenses, or was that just a really bad choice?) even features one party accusing another of using bad sources. Honestly, this whole "sourcing" thing seems less like a real hunt for answers than, I don't know, they heard the phrases "check your sources" and "I have my sources" and other such stuff in some sort of crime/spy/political thriller movie and it people figured it was important, they guess.
Sourcing is important, but not like this. I mean, first of all, it's kind of beside the point oftentimes on a furry site like this. The primary source is often the contributor, kind of like in this piece. It's an opinion piece; if the author doesn't know what his opinion is, and has to find a source to tell him what that is, it's not a very good opinion piece. Furthermore, it's often written as a narrative, with the author recounting events they took part in. Now, we can argue if this is "any fucking good" as an article, but sourcing is not really a big deal here.
Furthermore, Lydarkaon isn't actually a source; he's part of the story. The fact being reported is that Lydarkaon compiled a list, and that this inspired further lists, and that someone on one of those lists (not even Lydarkaon's list!) was defended by Kage ... kinda. My feelings are kind of who really cares. But anyway, whether or not Lydarkaon's list is worth shit at identifying bad guys is beside the point; all Charles has to prove is that the list exists, and nobody's denying this.
Now, the thing is, yes, Lydarkaon's list would be a bad source, journalistically, but not just because Lydarkaon may be some kind of bad person himself. First of all, it uses, as it's primary source, basically private conversations. Accuracy is almost beside the point, because, as far as journalistic ethics go, this shit is toxic. It may be inaccurate; but it's also unusable because it's information was not obtained legitimately.
Now, okay, when it comes to "social media" such as Twitter and Facebook and even probably public forums (or even, say, Flayrah's comment section), you're probably actually okay (though if everyone's at least pseudonymous and possibly anonymous, it still makes it "problematic" to source), and even then it is still probably a good idea to ask permission ("Hey, I liked your post, can I quote it in an article?"). However, DMs, private messages of any types, private forums, Discord channels, whatever ... using those is basically an invasion of privacy. I've never really said it out loud before, but this is why those activists who go into Furry Nazi discords and then screenshot the people who say "I'm a Nazi." and then dump then on Twitter or wherever are actually not helping. That's an invasion of privacy, and while "undercover journalism" is a thing, it's a bit more complicated than just "going undercover", and there's usually something very big and important that can only be revealed that way, unlike the Nazi discord dumps which usually prove "that guy everyone already new was a piece of shit" was actually "a piece of shit" all along!
Note: You can use quotes DMs or private Discords or whatever if you clearly identify yourself as a journalist and ask permission, but that's not what's happening a lot of times.
Now, there's also the problem of anonymous sources (looking at you, anons); you should be able to attach a name to a source. Now, in "mainstream" media, that should almost always be an actual name, but since we're furries and this is the Internet, pseudonyms are usually okay for Flayrah (and might be better; nobody knows who the fuck Joe Bob Smith is, but everyone knows Happy Fox) (yeah, two parenthetical phrases in a row, but even in mainstream reporting, sometimes pseudonyms are allowed, especially with entertainers; say, Awkwafina or Lady Gaga or whoever). Anonymous sources can be used, but like the undercover journalism thing, it had better be important (and usually the editor and publisher are made aware of who the source is); journalists have done jail time rather than reveal anonymous sources, so when I say, it had better be important, it had better be important.
Actually, I'm just going to ignore you right now and just get into the whole "sourcing" thing, because I do notice one of your links (which actually features two of the listed alt "aliases" of Lydarkaon apparently arguing with each other? Does he do that, like to keep up pretenses, or was that just a really bad choice?) even features one party accusing another of using bad sources. Honestly, this whole "sourcing" thing seems less like a real hunt for answers than, I don't know, they heard the phrases "check your sources" and "I have my sources" and other such stuff in some sort of crime/spy/political thriller movie and it people figured it was important, they guess.
Sourcing is important, but not like this. I mean, first of all, it's kind of beside the point oftentimes on a furry site like this. The primary source is often the contributor, kind of like in this piece. It's an opinion piece; if the author doesn't know what his opinion is, and has to find a source to tell him what that is, it's not a very good opinion piece. Furthermore, it's often written as a narrative, with the author recounting events they took part in. Now, we can argue if this is "any fucking good" as an article, but sourcing is not really a big deal here.
Furthermore, Lydarkaon isn't actually a source; he's part of the story. The fact being reported is that Lydarkaon compiled a list, and that this inspired further lists, and that someone on one of those lists (not even Lydarkaon's list!) was defended by Kage ... kinda. My feelings are kind of who really cares. But anyway, whether or not Lydarkaon's list is worth shit at identifying bad guys is beside the point; all Charles has to prove is that the list exists, and nobody's denying this.
Now, the thing is, yes, Lydarkaon's list would be a bad source, journalistically, but not just because Lydarkaon may be some kind of bad person himself. First of all, it uses, as it's primary source, basically private conversations. Accuracy is almost beside the point, because, as far as journalistic ethics go, this shit is toxic. It may be inaccurate; but it's also unusable because it's information was not obtained legitimately.
Now, okay, when it comes to "social media" such as Twitter and Facebook and even probably public forums (or even, say, Flayrah's comment section), you're probably actually okay (though if everyone's at least pseudonymous and possibly anonymous, it still makes it "problematic" to source), and even then it is still probably a good idea to ask permission ("Hey, I liked your post, can I quote it in an article?"). However, DMs, private messages of any types, private forums, Discord channels, whatever ... using those is basically an invasion of privacy. I've never really said it out loud before, but this is why those activists who go into Furry Nazi discords and then screenshot the people who say "I'm a Nazi." and then dump then on Twitter or wherever are actually not helping. That's an invasion of privacy, and while "undercover journalism" is a thing, it's a bit more complicated than just "going undercover", and there's usually something very big and important that can only be revealed that way, unlike the Nazi discord dumps which usually prove "that guy everyone already new was a piece of shit" was actually "a piece of shit" all along!
Note: You can use quotes DMs or private Discords or whatever if you clearly identify yourself as a journalist and ask permission, but that's not what's happening a lot of times.
Now, there's also the problem of anonymous sources (looking at you, anons); you should be able to attach a name to a source. Now, in "mainstream" media, that should almost always be an actual name, but since we're furries and this is the Internet, pseudonyms are usually okay for Flayrah (and might be better; nobody knows who the fuck Joe Bob Smith is, but everyone knows Happy Fox) (yeah, two parenthetical phrases in a row, but even in mainstream reporting, sometimes pseudonyms are allowed, especially with entertainers; say, Awkwafina or Lady Gaga or whoever). Anonymous sources can be used, but like the undercover journalism thing, it had better be important (and usually the editor and publisher are made aware of who the source is); journalists have done jail time rather than reveal anonymous sources, so when I say, it had better be important, it had better be important.