I have a question for all ATS.

First, I want to say I been around ATS for a little bit and thing I've noticed the most on ATS is people calling out the sources. I'm just curious if a list can be established for what people consider to be a reliable source and a non-reliable source. Let's face it what's reliebale to one person isn't to the next. So, we need like a system or something that way when people start posting we can see right away who their source is and already have an understanding on how they portray their views and be able to work from their. People say blogs aren't a source, some say wiki isn't a source, some say MSM isn't a source. You see where I'm going I'm sure, so let's start setting some standards. Also, we should find a way to block off from posting until you've read the entire material sourced. I don't know how many times people post and say well I didn't read it, but I'm going to give my opinion on it anyways. Anyone agree?

edit for grammar

[edit on 22-4-2010 by agentofchaos]

And then anyone caught using the unreliable sources will go to a gulag of the moderators' choosing for re-education.

Sounds like a plan.

Peace

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Dr Love]

very good idea

a database of reliable sources

and to go one step further
add source code to the forum
that when someone adds a url link
to a post, if the domain name matches
a reliable source in the database, then a lil
green flag is added in front of the link so
everyone will know without looking it up
whether it is considered reliable.

great suggestion

now how does one go about sorting out
the reliable from the unreliable??? hmmmm

reply to post by Dr Love


Well, it's good to see a moderator thought it was good idea, now I'm all fuzzy inside lol...Also, if someone feels that source being used is bad, they have to bring up evidence to support that claim; such as CNN is bad, because it falsified information in this way on this topic. I think this will put an end to arguments of the sources much faster so people can stay on topic.

reply to post by boondock-saint


I thank you. Would majority rules best in this case? or should we just get all the sources down first and then seperate them by their consistency for good reporting?

Excellent suggestion, I'm guessing it might be a bit of a handful for Mods to keep reviewing what's to be considered credible - BUT, would be a massive advantage to us here.

May I suggest Wikipedia not be added to the list of credible sources.

Bit tougth if you get your info the old fashiond way (books) but yeah, I know what exactly your on about.
Alien threads for instance... You mention Billy Miere or Von Daniken etc, and your toast!
Same with the people who quote the bible etc.

I suppose Ill quote the DaVinci code and other Hocus Pocus books next... I may just get a positive reaction then...

Such a list is impossible to make, like you said yourself everybody has a diffrent opinion on a valid source.

Also the standardization of such a list would create biases. for instance. I see a story but don't see the organization that published the story on the list so i immediatly don't take it seriously when it indeed could be true.

You see, you would create this kind of authority and imo its bad.

People just have to read it all and decide for themselves, the more we will practice this skill the better we will become.

reply to post by agentofchaos

Well, it's good to see a moderator thought it was good idea, now I'm all fuzzy inside lol...Also, if someone feels that source being used is bad, they have to bring up evidence to support that claim; such as CNN is bad, because it falsified information in this way on this topic. I think this will put an end to arguments of the sources much faster so people can stay on topic.

I believe the moderator was making a joke. Touching lightly on the Cass Sunstien opinion that the internet should be censored and that cognitive infiltration is necessary to guard people from false information. Which leads one to a profound question.

Who gets to say what is right and what is wrong?

May I suggest Wikipedia not be added to the list of credible sources.

May i second that!

Btw I have to say this is a great idea and maybe someone ATS should look into adding at some point in the future.

reply to post by colloredbrothers


I think nothing is impossible for starters, but people already dismiss sources so easily that even the "goods" ones get dismissed. While you do need the "bad" ones to level out your knowledge it is a capable of giving you wrong information. Lets face it word of mouth is a strong tool, if a majority of people are saying that wiki shouldn't be counted as a source then it probably shouldn't. Same goes for if something should be counted as reliable. I do see where biases come into play, but we can even make a gray area for undecided sources. It couldn't physically hurt could it?

reply to post by Rising Against


Actually, I think its 'what' infomation you use on Wiki.
Despite who ever can edit, it can be a good encyclopedia of info that can stem off into other aspects of what ever it is your researching.

Where else can I check the spelling of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch..? (Llanfair PG For short, North Wales village)

reply to post by jackflap


Hmm well sarcasm is hard to pick on up over the internet sometimes lol. I'm not trying to de-value anybody's material as everything is information and you need it all to develope any kind of ideas for yourself. I'm just trying to see what sites people consider to be the most credible and which ones they discredit the most. Not really trying to get the unreliable sites censored or anything like that. Good question, but I'm not entirely sure how to anwser it other then just compiling a huge list of sources and then have people list the ones they found as credible and un-credible and then tally up all the marks and then put them in their respective categories and if someone feels a source should be changed they have to present some good solid stuff from said site, I guess. Again, we're innovative I'm sure there is some way.

reply to post by agentofchaos


I have, at times, been guilty of this and I'm sure that it does annoy some of the community when someone "shoots from hip". Sometimes when I click the "reply" button I think "I can't believe I just said that".

A thought though, hasn't going with the majority at times turned out to be the wrong course? Just askin'...........


Peace...............yak055h

reply to post by yak055h


Touche, I suppose you're right about the majortiy rules. However, I'd like to consider us a pretty fair community. I'd just like to know that when I'm postin from a source it's not going to not get looked at, because I posted from someone people consider unreliable or inconsistent. Granted life is all about sticking to your guns and I don't need any sort of pat on the back for my thoughts. I'm just trying to make sure people's sources get a fair chance is all.

The very notion of deeming certain sources to be used on ATS as "acceptable" or "not acceptable" is very much internet censorship on a micro level...

Not the best idea I've seen on here by a long shot

[edit on 22/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]

Let me make my case I feel that there is too much possitive reaction on this idea without thinking it trough.

First of:

We would have to create this list toghetter and this in it self will be a hard task to do. Then if we would have established some sort of list we would have to vote to aprove of it.

Lets say 51% likes the list, are you going to implement it? I mean what you are doing is alienating 49%, is that what you want to do?

Also who will decide how many % of people must be for the list for it to be valid? I mean you are giving authority to someone, you are giving someone the power to claim the good source form the bad.

If the vote is 92% to me that would be a good list, but still we have the problem that people might rely too much on it and therefor dismiss a source that isnt' present on the list.

The internet has given us the opportunity to pull our selves away from authority in a way. we can read what we want be it crackpot theories or massive claims without evidence to hold them up. It's up to the people to decide themselves what to believe, if we can't even do that then you are acknowledging that we need authority to take care of us.

Okay that last sentence was kind of "far out there" but hej this is the internet I can be as far out as i want to.

conclusion:

A list will create an authority on the validity of information, the only thing it will do is narrow peoples views and we can't have that kind of mentality. For some my conclusion might be an extreme exageration, but know that some people will start to praise the list and defend it and before you know it youv split up too groups. The listers and the "crazy" non listers.

And that kids, is how we imprison our selves.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by colloredbrothers]

reply to post by Retrovertigo


Like I said I'm not trying to get any material censored at all. It can all still be posted and their for everyone to read, but if someone is going to be using a site that most of ATS deems un-credible it will get him looking into other sources for comfirmation. Like for example if I'm going to post I'm not going to post off of one source that says one thing. Now, when I find a multitude of sources and they're saying the same thing that is going to present a much nicer case for us to review then if I were to use the one source and that is what I'm trying to do. Set a palce up for people to be able to go to for their sources and where they can kind of see people's opinion of other sources. That's all I'm trying to do is make it fair, organized, and more functional. Definately not trying to stop anyone from posting anything; just trying to help them look in the "right" places I guess so they're material can be taken more seriously, instead of being dismissed right away because of their source.

reply to post by agentofchaos


Touche, I suppose you're right about the majortiy rules. However, I'd like to consider us a pretty fair community. I'd just like to know that when I'm postin from a source it's not going to not get looked at, because I posted from someone people consider unreliable or inconsistent. Granted life is all about sticking to your guns and I don't need any sort of pat on the back for my thoughts. I'm just trying to make sure people's sources get a fair chance is all.

**************************************************************

Gotcha, though members DO deserve a pat on the back for effective sourcing and research whether you agree with their findings or not. The effort is to be respected.

See ya around. Oh, by the way, when you catch up with Maxwell Smart please take him out quickly and don't make him suffer.



Peace...............yak055h

Originally posted by Dr Love
And then anyone caught using the unreliable sources will go to a gulag of the moderators' choosing for re-education.

Sounds like a plan.

Peace

[edit on 22-4-2010 by Dr Love]

I'm glad im not the only one seeing it.