Is Twitter actually worth using as an information source? Two unrelated incidents today have pushed Sneak firmly into the "no" camp. While the micro-blogging phenomenon is a wonderful reminder that some people out there really have nothing better to do than let the world know what they had for lunch, its use for matters a little more serious remains dubious.

Take poor Patrick Swayze for instance. The Twittersphere was awash with speculation that the 56-year old Dirty Dancer had finally lost his battle with cancer. Until it emerged that he is actually alive and well and chill-axing at his massive ranch.

Then news emerged that there could be a General Election in a couple of months. According to TechCrunch, a new profile claiming to be that of chief Labour whip Nick Brown appeared this morning, posted the Tweet - "the new speaker will only have a few weeks to settle in before the election is called" - and then promptly deleted the account. Chances are it's a phoney too. There is a lot of noise on Twitter, in fact, it's really what the site is all about. This is what makes it curiously addictive and dangerously unreliable at the same time.

They say that 90 per cent of all information on the internet is factually inaccurate (although Sneak got that particular fact from the internet, so it may not be true). Well, on Twitter, you can probably push that up to 95. Less a fount of all knowledge then and more an unstoppable torrent of misinformation.