I can help you out there. Assuming we're talking about facts and data, and not opinions and/or analysis (which I also post links to).

Here's an example of a weak one on my part, which I posted here. (.org link for Eri)

I posted the link without doing additional research on the numbers in it.

It's a right-wing site, and the data is presented as original to the article without any links to further sources within the article (the links that are there are not related to the numbers.)

If I had been presented with this article by an opponent in a discussion, step one would have been to ask, "who the heck is this Mike Antonucci person?" I would have come up with this. Not bad, but not great either.

Then I would have spent some time on Antonucci's own site looking for more sourcing for the hard numbers, since obviously we're still dealing with a politically-motivated source. I come up with this. Not much help - it's the same article with the same links.

A good test at this point is to try and find one of the statistics in an unsourced article from a different source. In other words, do some point checks for accuracy.

Take for example: "NEA lost more than 54,000 active K-12 members." There should be sources for something like that. A quick Google search shows a lot of references, but as I go through the first three Google pages, I see right away that all the quotes with that phrase in it are the same. In other words, all the different pages and articles quoting this number are using Mike as their source. This is what I call "inverted pyramid" sourcing, where many people are all teetering on one source, and a biased one at that. It's almost always a bad sign, and if someone pulled it on me (common in climate discussions) I would probably call bullshit.

It's possible if I did more research, I could confirm that statistic somewhere else, but nobody should have to go to that much scutwork just to show that Antonucci knows what he's talking about.

I would therefore rate that page as a bad source for data. The facts may or may not be "twisted," but there's no way to tell. If he's accurate, he shows nothing on the site itself to back it up. A link to something like the NEA, or some completely unrelated source with the same numbers would fix it, but it isn't there.

How's that? And I saved Eri a lot of trouble.