If something is very popular then you can provide links to what others are saying about it.

I also like the double link back idea. Citing from where an item originated and from where you learned about it helps the reader discover new web sites that may appeal to them.

The more source links you can provide the better. I just find it strange when I see people referencing a “middle man” site rather than a source site.

I also find it annoying when I do research on a story and have too dig through multiple “source” links to find the actual source of a story. Perhaps this is something those of who spend a lot of time on Digg have picked up?

As is the case with most media, only a very small percentage of news is truly original (a big “scoop”). As such, I try to aggregate interesting information about tech products and add something to the story when I can. Whether it’s connecting multiple stories, adding humor or just editorial flourish, that’s what I try to do. When the news isn’t sourced from a press release or word of mouth, it’ll often be sourced from another website or blog. In that case, I do my best to both link to the product manufacturer’s website in the article itself, then provide [via] links to any source site. If my direct source site sourced it somewhere else, I’ll offer “double” via link back to the originating source if I can find it (i.e. [via X via Y]).

Do you guys agree that this is a good practice, or do you think that we should only link to the earliest source we can find our way to?

P.S. If you think about conventional media, like your evening news, they don’t even bother crediting their sources, so at least blogging offers that advantage.