[CSL]

Dirtsheets are sort of laughed at because they're wrong all the time. Most of what's on dirstheets is just news aggregated from press releases or superstar twitter accounts. A small portion is speculative stuff about backstage stuff and most of that is total BS. Dirtsheets are an ad-revenue based business so they do what they gotta do to get eyes on their sites - including making stuff up. I think if there were real insiders, surprises like Brodus's debut or Brock's would be spoiled well in advance. I think the writers like to stick to their own ideas until the possibility to make money rears its head. Like when an entire arena is chanting YES YES YES -- they go ahead and make a new t-shirt. But like I said the writers are wrestling fans themselves. They love a great Tyson Kidd match as much as the next smark, but they also know that putting him on RAW against Heath Slater is gonna make the ratings nosedive for that segment. As for the last question, as much as the writers may hate to admit it they are smarks themselves, so they get a kick out of some smarky things. For example Santino's joke a few months ago about repealing the rule instated by Jack Tunney about not allowing reptiles at ringside. That came straight from Brian Gewirtz because he always thought that was a funny rule. Most non-smarks wouldn't get that reference at all." -- On dirtsheet sources: "No idea who the "sources" were. I wondered that a lot while I worked there. It certainly wasn't anyone that I worked with on the writing team. Could possibly some dot com guys or crew people that got second hand knowledge of upcoming storylines. Most of what's on the dirtsheets is made up bullcrap though. Very rarely does a true backstage story make it out. When you hear something like "The original plan was to have so and so win, but a last minute change..." that's almost always completely wrong."