I'm not a moderator, so perhaps my opinion doesn't count, but there are 2 sort of paths that the forum can take with each bit of 'rumour'.
The first being leave it on, in this case by doing that there is more discussion around the topic. That can't be a terrible thing, discussion is good, and a forum without discussion would be dead.
On the other hand the type of discussion matters. Before we get into the vetting process of other forums, we do not vet information or members here, we do not witch hunt, everything written is taken with a grain of salt here. The closest thing we have is a donation bet, which is really just fun charity to keep this site alive.
That being said, science has always been about starting at a point 'A' and testing it to see where we end up say a hypothetical "B". That B can be anything, it can be anything we never imagined. It has no bias, it just exists. Our goal here at B3D is to take a starting point of usable data and work out the possibilities of B, create foundations and build upon those foundations so that our answers are rooted in each other. This sometimes becomes a heavy debate of cyclical speculation and likely some BS from time to time, but I'm empathetic to our members who would rather just get straight to the point and discard discussions that aren't worthy of reading.
However, when we talk about 'verified' sources, or vetted sources. We are taking the end point of "B" and working our way back to "A". If B is true, working its way back to A is fairly straight forward and it becomes agreeable quickly. If it is not true this results in us warping or discarding foundational knowledge that we have because by choosing to align with "B" without knowing it's correct or not, we must warp reality from A to get to B. And we have seen this happen on this forum and many others. Many times users are vetted, but information cannot be. Whether Resetera, or Gaf, it makes no difference, we have no way to vet information and we have no way to verify it's accuracy either. But because it's been 'vetted' many readers/members may take that very tempting shortcut to declare it as 'correct' or point "B" ignoring all the conflicting information there is with our foundational knowledge that we have as a forum; I believe this is wrong for this forum. Works fine on twitter, era and gaf, where they do not have the knowledge to understand the claims so they just attack the posters directly.
I'm fine with either way, as long as members don't crutch on 'but it's verified'. Being verified or vetted should not be crutch to stop board members from questioning the information, and those who want to believe in it should prepare to defend the positions without needing to rely on 'verification'.
tdlr; the best type of discussion is a discussion of the claims, and seeing if it's works out or not. Who makes the claim is not important, it's how to verify the claim internally here at B3D.
The worst type of discussion is fully qualify information because that source has been vetted, or to fully disqualifying a claim because that source has not been vetted.
It's a claim, we seek to prove it. It shouldn't matter if it's vetted or not.
Some claims will naturally take longer to prove than others.
