I'm not talking about neighbours who claim. I'm talking friends, family and neighbours who you actually know.

I'm sorry, is there a difference? Does you or me knowing them give them some sort of extra expertise or knowledge on a subject?

No, of course it doesn't.

I've corrected plenty of friends and family and even acquaintances on blatantly false shit they "know" from their isolated silos and bubbles IRL, whereas I - "terminally online" (aka Informed) always seem to actually know better, but even more importantly I can actually quickly find exactly the source I am using for that information I'm giving to them and show why it's a decent source, or even enhance my understanding if I misremembered any detail.

Its more than a claim because you know were they work and various elements of their past.

Which does what? How does this help them be a reliable source of information in the slightest?

You must critically analyze information regardless of source, and learn to mentally cancel the bias towards those you know. Information (and context) must be evaluated on its own in a vacuum (though again, with context, to determine intent), but things such as the pure validity of factual statements don't actually become substantially different based on who is speaking (though the intent may change).

As for the jesus thing I do know what historians use but there are two groups about the historacity of jesus. One feels there are multiple independent sources for the existence of christ based on historians using unsited independent sources they had. One feels multiple sources used each others accounts along with christian accounts until you go back to josephus who only was talking to christians. So my use of bad logic was the assumption sources are independent when their sources are not given.

Yeah, but again, why are the sources like that? Dig deeper, the answers you want are there, they just might not be satisfying.