Yes, passing off incorrect information as factual is wrong, in any
medium.  But those whose source of information is comments found
on YouTube videos isn't citing history, they're citing commentary --
and a _highly_ suspect source!

Anyone seeking historical information on virtually any subject
can easily do better than the comments section of YouTube videos.
The information there is only as correct as the people who post it,
and since its open to anyone and everyone (and, furthermore, quite
anonymous), taking what is said there as undeniable fact is both
lazy scholarship and generally foolish.

What is more troubling, in terms of historical research, is when the
first book written on a subject gains stature as a "monumental work"
and is referenced by other writers on the same subject, even though
historical inaccuracies abound in the original book.  When this occurs,
misinformation, half-truths and fictionalized accounts become accepted
as fact, and the historical understanding of those interested in the
subject become distorted.

I understand the gentleman's concern regarding what happened in
regards to the value of an item he was selling -- that a novice made
an ill-informed remark that ultimately [may have] had the effect of
lowering the final price.

Was no effort made to show that this novice's comment or information
was incorrect?  Might setting the story straight have had the effect of
actually driving the price higher?  Incorrect information is one thing,
but allowing it to persist and gain the perception of truth is quite
another.

Bryan Cather