I wouldn't want this particular thread to get too heavy, because of course all we can debate are opinions. I'm just saying that in judging the relative quality of opinions, I give greater weight to references to facts than to other opinions. Quality over quantity.

When it comes to facts, there's a hierarchy of quality. At the top are primary sources such as transcripts and original documents (with the caveat that in a digital world anything can be forged or indetectably altered). Below the primary sources are secondary sources such as synopses and "executive summaries" and news reports. Opinion starts to creep in at this level, obviously in the news, but also in summaries. I've been struck by how often an executive summary puts a spin on a report--for example, in the report a few years ago on the loss of Mars Polar Lander the executive summary basically said "faster, better, cheaper" worked just fine, while the body of the report laid the blame on schedule pressure and lack of resources. The lesson I learned from that is to do the hard work of slogging through the bodies of those reports.

And that's my opinion.