When you’re fact finding address your doubts before you return and report.
Don’t come back to your team with “allegedly” or “supposedly.” Words like that telegraph your own uncertainty in a way that paints your sources as unreliable.
If you really can’t be sure then state who reported which fact. Such as, “John told me the site was up at 5 PM.”
Even when facts conflict, simply report them.
For example: “John reported the site up at 5 PM and Eric reported that it was down at the same time.”
Notice how that phrasing points your thinking to the riddle: how could they make conflicting observations? Was there something different in their environments?
Now see how prejudicial it would be to say, “John reported the site up at 5 PM but Eric supposedly couldn’t reach it at the same time.” The weasel word “supposedly” and, to a lesser extent, the humble conjunction “but” paints a doubting arrow to Eric. We have an emotional reaction to the reporter of the fact instead of the tension in the facts.
(The affect can be subtle in alien examples like these. The doubt comes through boldly on teams that really do have trouble trusting each other.)
You can come up with more weaselly words that pretend to be reporting facts when they are really casting judgement: allegedly, apparently, purportedly.
Journalists use words like this more and more. I assume they are trying to insulate themselves from liability for slander and libel. It’s a mistake to add this kind of misdirection to our professional discourse.
When you qualify a fact with, “allegedly” you throw them into doubt in a way that often maligns the source. “Allegedly this bug was fixed last week according to Robert.”
Oh, and the same goes for “air-quoting” a portion of your colleague’s report. “John said the bug was ‘fixed.'”
Always remember, you’re job boils down to two responsibilities: deliver results and build the team. Weasel words do little to deliver results and much to tear down team.
