It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Heavily moderated citation forum requested

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:57 PM
I was just thinking how great it would be to have a forum where posts would HAVE to have citations to backup any claims made, or else the post gets deleted.

Way too often people approach this site with a "trust the stranger on the internet" mentality, and often they are completely wrong in their assertion anyways -- which could be easily fixed by forcing them to provide citations.

The posts would be much higher in quality, a better resource for learning, and easier to trust.

I think such a forum would be a big hit -- because it would put a stop to nonsense posts, uninformed opinions, and one liner stupidity.

Anyone think this could work? I could be dead wrong -- things rarely work out the way you envision, but I think everyone would appreciate eliminating the "trust the stranger on the internet" posts.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:10 PM
I think that's really a great idea for certain topics.

Unfortunately, there are some topics on ATS that are strictly opinion based.

Things like religion, and the chance for Armaggedon (2012 etc) and the myriad of topics concerning "Extra-Celestials" and UFO's.

(Although, it would really help the UFO/Alien threads if they DID post citations/proof to support their ideas/beliefs)

So I mean, I'm all for having particular threads with a "Back-up" to the claim or observation.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Ssemaje Jhrvys

(Although, it would really help the UFO/Alien threads if they DID post citations/proof to support their ideas/beliefs)

You mean like THIS one?

The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

It does not get any better than this

There are many good posters on ATS that work very hard to provide whatever documentation is available. But when your dealing with topics that have no hard evidence or proof, how do you provide citation?

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:16 PM
This is a good idea. Just have to get more people on board to agree with this idea.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Rocketgirl]

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by Kaytagg

It is a great idea, but it probably couldnt work on ATS, because most people here think every source of information is a government psy-op unless it is from some guy with his own website who never takes off his Reynolds Wrap Chapeau. So basically you could never get everyone to agree that the source is reliable.[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:01 AM
Bob: Hey Mr. what was your name again?

Stranger: Just call me deepthroat.

Carl: What are you some kind of sick porn freak?

Stranger: No, I have a story for you about a conspiracy, it's really big.

Bob: Carl I think you are right he's a porn freak.

Stranger: No, its about a conspiracy, one that involves the break in at the Democratic Headquaters!

Bob: Do you have a citation for that ah Mr. Sheepgoat?

Stranger: No, that's deepthroat not sheepgoat and no I don't have a citation for it, it's a friggin conspiracy not a Farmers Almanac!

Carl: He seems kind of unstable to me, first the porn thing, now goats, and no citations.

Bob: Your right, lets get out of here dude!

Carl: Later weirdo!

Stanger: You guys really should be working for the New York Times.

Believe it or not it seems Deep Throat went to them first and lacking any kind of citation the Editor passed on pursuing the lead!

I think Wikipedia has the kind of forums you are looking for!

Enjoy researching the mating habits of the red spotted salamander!

Oh boy!

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:17 AM
Do you have any evidance this is going on do you? where is the hard solid proof, or is it in your mind??... thats a bad idea and supressing freedom of speach

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:21 AM
reply to post by Watchdog-Finland

Well, I don't want to link to threads and posts by people that I feel are speaking out of ignorance -- but you can find plenty of those posts if you look for yourself.

If you don't feel like providing references to any factual claim being made, then just don't contribute.

The idea is to have a comprehensive source of information -- not just from the OP, but from the contributing posts as well. So when you cycle through all the replies, you're getting more and more information -- not less and less.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by Kaytagg
hey hey hey dont bust onm my parade of glory here, if he wants a site liek that im off, form here, thats supressing freedom of speach, and let the nutcakes be alone, they are still same worth as you are?? or are they not??

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by Watchdog-Finland

As the topics requiring people to cite sources (for claims being made that aren't common knowledge) will be on their own, separate board, I don't see how anyone's free speech is being stifled.

It's a simple case of "If I'm going to add information to this thread that most people don't know, I have to include where that information came from, for the benefit and convenience of the readers and contributors."

If you can't do that, then post on a different board, or keep your version of reality to yourself.

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:19 AM
reply to post by Kaytagg

User ignored

reasons, does not think before it speaks

top topics


log in