The Internet presents us with instant information, from reliable and unreliable sources. I am an unreliable source. Most of what we read on the Internet is, but there are clues to spotting the unreliable.
Anonymity is a big tip off, said the hypocritical blogger who goes by a pseudonym. But then I've already said I'm no expert, and my anonymity, designed to separate the Googleable work me from the personal me, is imperfect. I stand behind my opinions. My name just stands a little further back.
Lack of sources is another clue. Where is the writer getting the facts? And if the opinion isn't based on fact, it's not worth any more than my Magic Eight Ball's opinions.
Checking those sources is important. Conspiracy theorists might not trust the typical reliable sources, but look at the reputation of the organization putting out the information. The Mayo Clinic is likely a better source of information about a drug than a pharmaceutical company, for example, and far better than one person complaining she took the medicine once and it gave her hives. Then use the gut feeling test to check the correlation between the facts and the opinion - in your now-informed opinion, is the author's take on the issue reasonable?
So please, don't believe something just because I tell you to. Unless I tell you that my favourite colour is blue. And even then, skepticism is a good thing.
(Visit my blog, Unified Theory of Nothing Much, for more slightly substantiated opinions on entertainment and life.)