Infinite Loop as Ars Technica reported this morning on the possibility of the iPhone having “additional undisclosed features.” I was eager to read the article, both as a rabid iPhone devotee and fan of the Infinite Loop blog. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that the source of these new rumors was a blog entry at ViM3.

The reason for my disappointment? As far as I can tell, ViM3 has no history of being a credible source of Apple information. Further, it has has very little history of being anything at all. Consider:

• Vim3 has a total of 5 articles
• 4 of those articles were posted on the same day, March 17th, 2007
• No author or contact infomation is provided

This doesn’t speak well for the sites reliability. With regards to the source of their iPhone rumors, Vim3 states

“According to our source from an Apple affliate (that shall not be named), Steve left out some of the iPhone’s features”

While I would love to believe the article, there is a limit to which I am willing to accept, or even consider, the validity of any rumor. As we have seen most recently on Engadget, no source of information can be completely trusted until the statement comes directly from Apple, addressed to the public.

Infinite Loop was clear to state that the post was pure rumor. The question becomes, what is worth posting? Is a rumor so ridiculous or the source so dubious that it doesn’t justify recognition? The article on ViM3, discussed on a variety of other Apple blogs as well, falls far below the threshold of what should be considered credible.

With less than a month remaining until the actual launch, do we really have to look into what an “Apple affliate(sic)” may or may not have said about a product they may or may not be involved with? I love unsubstantiated rumors when it comes to Apple. But when I read wild speculation, I want quality wild speculation. This is a serious matter, after all.