Speaking specifically to the reason you mention (“when visitors come to your site looking for a trusted, respectable source”), does/should the institution represent itself as a “subject matter expert”? This brings up the question of “what is the institution’s legal responsibility in fielding an opinion on this content?” Which is followed by, “who forms this opinion”, “what is the rule of concensus” and finally “who is going to manage the feedback that follows”? What are the possible ramifications (positive and negative) in being a subject matter expert? [My opinion: this potential quigmire would really bind up the legal & exec depts, so this probably doesn't happen much.]

Or, does the institution merely field an abstract on the topic, fortified with links to other credible/recommended sources (CNN, local news, other appropriate organizations – i.e. CDC, etc)? This stance allows the institution to ‘coattail’ existing content and media outlets by compiling them and providing a sort of “Cliff’s Notes” to their viewers. It gives the impression of credibility, while relying on existing, external sources’ value to provide the actual content and detail – and puts the onus of responsibility on the visitor to make their own decision. As an institution, you have merely provided them the means to make their own informed decisions.

In my particular instance, due to the horrendously crummy nature of our site (please don’t look directly at it, really) and the absolute lack of workflow and content ownership – our method is summed up in one word: “don’t”. This avoids any legal conundrums involved in stating an opinion and any “homework” done to procure and verify external links.

Is this ideal? Absolutely not, especially considering that “community” and “communication” are parts of our value statement. But hopefully with our impending “burn it down; start over” overhaul it will be by Q3 ’08.