Accountability for Misinformation

[GailL1]

This is directed to the AARP Community Care Group and involves this Community Board and the guidelines to which we are all accountable when posting on this Community Board.

I read most all post that are given here; most are just fine.  However, when a person comes here to post a grievance and gives some data point - numbers or how the program works or is being changed - they need to back up this criteria with some link on where they have found the information so that we, the others reading such from them, can check it out for ourselves.

This has to be enforced or this board should just be changed to games and songs because at least they are not spreading misinformation.

From Your Guideline for this board.  

Cite your sources

We encourage members to use online resources in their discussions. But please be sure to cite your sources and give credit where it is due. You may link to and summarize cited sources but may not copy entire articles or videos into your post. False and misleading information is also prohibited.

[GailL1]

Another example posted to day - why can you not enforce your own guidelines?

 https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/United-Healthcare-Payment-of-9-000-000-000-to-AARP/... 

[GailL1]

@AARPCommunityCare

A perfect example is a post today 10/12/2025 by  @LindaS108826

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Medicare-Insurance/46-Increase-for-2024-AARP-UHC-Part-D-in-North-Carol... 

[SereneSeagull]

I agree.  Interestingly, when posting in the article discussion boards the AI safety net catches the most ridiculous things.  Doesn’t happen here like it does there.  Try citing sources where something was found, and post might then say “pending approval”, type an acronym and it too could be held for pending or removed. And we’re talking pretty innocuous things.

Type medical jargon or procedure and it could meet the same fate.  It’s oddly random and one has to be creative to get their message posted.  

It would be good if there were uniformity for sure

[GailL1]

Then sometimes if they just give a name where they got the info and I try tracing it back using their own words, then I find that the source info is dated back in 2004 or even earlier.  So check the date of info - sometimes it will fool you into thinking it is something current but it is far from it.  

[CBtoo]

Well on the thread you mentioned above you cited 13 and 16 year old information (based on the dates you used) to back yourself up. I'd suggest to practice what you preach before complaining about it. 

[GailL1]

But that was true information - testimony in front of the Ways and Means Committee in 2011 - on the same thing we were discussing.  

I did not propose that it was current info. - sometimes people post things and don’t check the date and post as if it was new info.  

My post was not meant to be current - I made it a point to state it was from 2011 because it was pertinent  to the subject we were discussing - AARP and UHC and royalties.  

I always try to post the date because it has tripped me up before especially back when AARP did not update their articles with a date.

[SereneSeagull]

Yep.  Why would one even give old sources?  Ridiculous.  

[CBtoo]

I don't know. Ask Gail why she did on the 9 billion dollar royalty thread. Two of her cites to back herself up were 13 and 16 years old.

[GailL1]

Because it was a historic event (testimony before Ways and Means committee) and I did make sure that the post stated as such - from 2011.

Surely you know the difference in posting an old article because it has bearing and shows the old date and one that is old but there is no date or it is presented as new information.