Is YouTube a credible source of information?

I would say that youtube is not a "source", rather a platform for millions of sources to put out their "information". Now, I would say that most of those sources are not credible; however, as with anything, there certainly are some credible sources that post on youtube....good luck finding them though.

reply to post by davesidious


OT:

Sorry, I still don`t buy it from you. For one, I don`t put anything that is published in a "high standard" bracket. Why, because anything can be put on paper and then published. And just because they are gone over by their peers, still doesn`t mean it`s correct, or the truth. As for newspapers not being the same, yes they are, the articles that are written in them are written by professional writers, and then the articles are gone over by the editors, the same as the "peers" you speak of, before they are published.





[edit on 1-2-2010 by FiatLux]

reply to post by FiatLux


You don't know what I mean by "published paper". I'm talking about papers being published, ie formally accepted for peer review, in a scientific publication like Nature. Not just anything that is printed on paper. I'm talking about academic publishing.

Again, you are clearly misinformed about some of these terms that I am using.

YouTube isn't a "source" because YouTube doesn't produce any of the videos themselves.

If someone posts a youtube link of someone reading a peer reviewed article...then that probably has more credibility then someone talking into a web cam. I can watch history channel documentaries on youtube...does that automatically make them false? (btw...not saying history channel is 100% credible either...just an example).


It's just like everything else on the internet (and in life)...you aren't suppose to take one piece of information and take it as credible. You take that information and research it.


So is youtube credible? I guess it depends on the video's source.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Exactly - but then it's like citing wikipedia instead of the source itself. It's a way to find out information, but to cite it itself is ridiculous.

reply to post by davesidious

OT:
No, I`m not misinformed at all. Going by your train of thought, that is like saying because it was put before their peers, and that their peers buy it, we also have to buy it. Am I correct in that?

If you buy it, then sir, you are misinformed yourself. When did scientists become the source for all truth? Because what they wrote about was bought by their peers? That`s right, we all know that science is above corruption, isn`t it? You state that it`s " a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage" that is wrong, well, I believe your percentages are a little low. All information has to be taken with a grain of salt, be it You Tube, or science. Now, if you feel the need to slam me or anyone else further, please do it via U2U from now on.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Drunkenshrew

 

True, but the accuracy of their ideas is never established, so it serves no purpose other than to watch the video and then find out whether the ideas have any validity by checking on actual scientific research that corroborates them.

For most areas I agree with you. It is always good to conduct a thoroughly research on a topic. A short YouTube clip can seldom provide all necessary information. In some areas Youtube can provide information which is as valuable as academic research. YouTube is a very good source for interviews and speeches. If the clips are not distorted, the original interviews and speeches are better sources, than excerpts of these interviews quoted by historians. Although one must be very careful with the interpretation, because people often try to distort the facts, clips from actual events are also valuable pieces of information. ATS is a conspiracy related website. Many threads on ATS are about contemporaneous events or possible scenarios in the future. For most of these events, no academic published information exists. Blogs, Youtube, and news media are often the only available sources.

Although scientific papers on diverse ethical topics exist, and reading them broadens ones perspective, it is not necessary to quote them when discussing questions of ethics and morality. In these areas the ideas and opinions of uneducated citizens can IMHO be as valuable as well researched scientific papers. For example last century many respected scientists backed the eugenics movement with manufactured bogus science. Many of the elite joined this movement. Most uneducated normal people considered the ideas of this movement repugnant. From todays perspective, the uneducated masses have been right in their assessment.

In questions of ethics, it is always good to trust your own perspective and believes. If you agree with someone on YouTube, why not post his ideas? His ideas may be more valuable than the ideas formulated by technocrats with numerous academic degrees in a peer reviewed journal.

reply to post by davesidious


Snideness aside...

Yes, I'm pretty sure everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows how Wiki works. And it does not always have to be cited. When such is not done, it typically has a notation that a source is not provided. It's preferred but not a must.

In the end, it is still user generated content which is what I was getting at. Do you understand? Of course all three have their differences. What I was getting at is how I personally view reliability. And that is, it can be a sufficient starting point but it's not wise to leave it at that.

reply to post by FiatLux


Then be prepared to never, ever know anything, which is what you are proposing.

Science works. It is a self-correcting methodology. Scientists might not be above corruption, but all scientists are not, and the fact that you don't understand peer reviewing doesn't change that.

You still are misinformed. You are calling for everyone to not believe anything, unless they themselves personally perform the experiments and research to demonstrate it.

Just by typing your nonsense over the internet you have displayed a fantastic amount of hypocrisy, as without the peer-reviewed journals you condemn, you wouldn't have it. Or any medicine. Or anything that makes you live past the age of 25. What a pathetic view of the world you must have. Or are you simply jealous of the scientists because they have a clue?

reply to post by AshleyD


It's user-generated summations of public information. Your wording makes it sound like it's baseless conjecture, which it actually isn't.

I would say for the most part no.

Don’t get me wrong you can find some real stuff and some interesting stuff on there. But you also find a lot more fake stuff and misleading stuff on there.

For instance in this video you have a mixture of real photos as well as some faked photos. Much like the forward emails you get about someone finding such and such creature the photo might be real but the story given is completely false.



I understand the peer review completely. While you might not agree with the outcome of the information given in a peer reviewed paper it far more reliable than most anything you can find on the internet. For the most part you can used news paper and magazine articles in references for academic use but they are looked down upon in many ways. Certainly you would never want to use a Wikipedia or YouTube as a reference to do so would be suicide to a grade.

Anyone can put anything on either YouTube or Wikipedia; it is a bit of a challenge to get a published peer review.

Raist

originally posted by: calcoastseeker
Youtube is for entertainment purposes only not educational purposes.

I 100% disagree. YouTube University is where I go first when I need learn to do something. Fix, build, etc

a reply to: WinterWonderland

Is YouTube a credible source of information?

Well what do you think...

Thirdphaseofmoon...





Secureteam10...





And here is my favorite ADG...





And there are many more.

Thats like asking is paper a credible source of information.

a reply to: WinterWonderland

you have to be careful, some if the info is not true conjecture some of it is true , if you are unfamiliar with the topic youll need to trust your best instincts and or intuition

I found it to be one of the best websites for research