Yesterday it was reported that Wikipedia editors have decided that mainstream newspaper The Daily Mail is an 'unreliable source' - not to be trusted. This made me think about what content we trust and why.

There are some content brands I will always trust - maybe because I am middle class, originally British and a bit of a leftie in my political opinions - I read The Guardian, watch Channel 4 news and listen to the Today program on Radio 4 every morning.  Others I take with a pinch of salt but enjoy and some I distrust entirely (not a big fan of The Sun or Daily Mail but realise that the writers at both are fantastic communicators - plus you have to try to get out of your own echo chamber).  So essentially I have an internal dial on how much I trust what I am reading and watching.

My 'trust dial' also comes into action when I read content online - whether it's on LinkedIn, on a blog, a tweet or Facebook.  There are some sources I trust more than others and importantly online those 'sources' are nearly always individuals as opposed organisations.  

For example, I trust content created by someone I know to be an expert more than the 'corporate voice' of the firm they work for (even if the message is the same).  I also take into consideration who has shared or liked someone else's content online when judging how much to trust that content.  Again it is a personal judgement on the person sharing - are they a 'reliable source'?  As they say you do not refer a company to your friend because you like the company it is because you like your friend.

So when you write content be sure to make it authentic and make sure you can be trusted!  

PS: If you trust me please share :)