I'm a regular digg reader, I have found it to be an important source of information and mostly credible, yet you can still find inaccurate submissions in there. One of the measures digg uses to flag inaccurate submissions is to let the its readers flag the submission as possibly inaccurate, and this method has more or less worked. But supporters of Presidential candidate Ron Paul has really screwed up the system.
They seem to only care about whether a story is good for the image of their candidate so they try to bury negative stories about their candidate. The most recent story is this one where The Information Paradox links to a YouTube video where Ron Paul says he does not accept the theory of evolution. Anybody who watches the clip will hear him say those words categorically yet, his supporters maybe because they cannot bury the story has labeled the story as "possibly inaccurate."
How juvenile can you get? Your candidate says the words himself in the video how much more accurate can you get?
And if these are the kinds of supporters a candidate has, what can we think of the candidate himself?