It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

I have a question for all ATS.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


At the same times, it is ok to dismiss people's thread on the base of the source they are using. This is my problem, people see the source and discredit the thread. I'm just trying to help people build better cases for their threads, I'm not trying to limit what sources are used. At some point, people can agree a source is a good, bad, or they just don't know. What is so bad about compiling a list of good and bad. What if, someone was going to use a "bad" source, but sees it's listed here as bad, checks out one of the sources labeled as "good" finds much more information then he was going to and is now able to post both sources a good one and bad ones. Now you get to see a whole spectrum of information infront of you. One from a "good" one and one from a "bad" one.




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


And as time goes by, people will be less inclined to post sources that are deemed "unacceptable" due to human nature...A desire to fit in, if you will...

A list of "acceptable" sources will also have a tendency to make pariahs of people who don't use sources from the list...If you think people get bagged out now for posting sources other people don't deem acceptable, just wait until your list becomes reality...That sort of thing will increase massively, it won't solve what you see as currently being a problem, it will make it MUCH worse...

This is censorship whether you think it is or not...If you put make up on a pig, etc...

This is a bad idea


Edit to add - you should have a chat with Australia's communications minister...He and you have a lot in common, in fact, I'm sure he could find a really nice job for you...

[edit on 22/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


At the same times, it is ok to dismiss people's thread on the base of the source they are using. This is my problem, people see the source and discredit the thread. I'm just trying to help people build better cases for their threads, I'm not trying to limit what sources are used. At some point, people can agree a source is a good, bad, or they just don't know. What is so bad about compiling a list of good and bad.
What if, someone was going to use a "bad" source, but sees it's listed here as bad, checks out one of the sources labeled as "good" finds much more information then he was going to and is now able to post both sources a good one and bad ones. Now you get to see a whole spectrum of information infront of you. One from a "good" one and one from a "bad" one.


The reason why people use "bad" sources is because the "credible" sources don't talk about the topic at hand. He might see it listed as bad and search for the same information in the good sources from the list, but if he doesn't find a good source talking about this information then automaticly it becommes BS in the eyes of people that follow the list religiously.

Credible sources also virtually don't exist. I mean you can have sources that are credible 60% of the time or even more but there is always a chance that they drop the ball on some other story. These things are dynamic and people should simply use there brains to figure it out.

Again if we can't even do that then I'm ashamed of ourselves.



[edit on 22-4-2010 by colloredbrothers]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


And as time goes by, people will be less inclined to post sources that are deemed "unacceptable" due to human nature...A desire to fit in, if you will...

A list of "acceptable" sources will also have a tendency to make pariahs of people who don't use sources from the list...If you think people get bagged out now for posting sources other people don't deem acceptable, just wait until your list becomes reality...That sort of thing will increase massively, it won't solve what you see as currently being a problem, it will make it MUCH worse...

This is censorship whether you think it is or not...If you put make up on a pig, etc...

This is a bad idea


Edit to add - you should have a chat with Australia's communications minister...He and you have a lot in common, in fact, I'm sure he could find a really nice job for you...

[edit on 22/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]


Exactly the list would split up the community into groups and before you know it, it becommes a taboe to post stories from the "bad" section of the list or you get demonized by the religious list fanatics for doing so.

Dangerous stuff even if its "just" a list. We have learned from our mistakes, this is what i like to believe.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by colloredbrothers]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


I am almost afraid to ask this...
Would that unreliable source list include my
King James Bible?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by agentofchaos
 


Regarding sources ... it really sort of depends what one is trying to achieve in an OP or a regular post. It also depends if we're talking about satisfying the different forum requirements from an ATS point of view (BAN forum for example has obviously different standards than the Grey Area), or if we're talking about satisfying the expectations of other members. The latter is a complicated subject simply because many members are intransigent no matter what sourced evidence one provides whereas others are willing to accept anything provided it reinforces their preconceptions.

Most of us I suspect dwell somewhere in between ...

The source frustration I imagine is somewhat borne our of a desire for finality, an understandable wish to achieve topical closure one way or another. Whereas that may be easier (though not always) in the case of breaking news because multiple sources will report an event, in the case of the more conspiratorial topics we dwell in, where seemingly unconnected dots are presented as a coherent theory, the responsibility lies with the person proposing it to provide as many and as sound sources as possible.

Keep in mind that the nature of the internet can provide/source one with pretty much any information, no matter how flawed, to sustain a theory.

But ultimately that's what we're here for, to discuss all the above including source validity, hopefully in the process getting a little closer to the facts ... the truth is a whole other bowl of wax.


[edit on 22 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Understanding the current mindset the way I do, I would venture to say yes.

I may be able to get you into a minimum-security gulag if that's any consolation.

Peace



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth

I am almost afraid to ask this...
Would that unreliable source list include my
King James Bible?


This is one of the issues that makes me think the idea of an "approved" source list isn't a very good one.

My answer to that question? Your KJ Bible is an excellent source if the topic is what the bible says. Doesn't get too much better, unless it's a thread quibbling over translation differences in the Bible, in which case I'd side with another version if the question is what's truest to the original, and the KJ if the question is what certain Christian sects now follow


I don't think it's a reliable source for scientific information. I think it's a reliable source for some historical info, as long as it's read with an eye toward careful historicist interpretation. Etcetera etcetera.

Similar for Wikipedia. In general I find them to be more reliable than not reliable, especially if you check the discussion pages and the history of changes on the pages. But there are obvious problems with using a source anyone can edit.

I don't think there's any such thing as a completely reliable news source. Even my favorites have their biases and blind spots, and even my least favorites sometimes get things right and break a real story.

That's one of the points of even asking for sources in my opinion -- so that you can check out how a given story or claim is presented, trace back from the source of the post to the source of the story, in other words, do the research.

Overall, I think the ATS membership does a fairly good job of that, and most of the sources I see dismissed out of hand (Sorcha Faal for instance) have a long and easily searchable track record of posting not just misleading or poorly sourced stories but outright hoaxes.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I for one, think this is a brilliant idea..

Second line for my shades..
'cause it's such a bright idea.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jokei
May I suggest Wikipedia not be added to the list of credible sources.



I'll second that one even though I have used them many times for reference.
But Never as a source. Here as there it's info is debatable.




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 


NOOOOOO,not a gulag,they are in russia!
Do you know what would happen if I were
in russia?I know that I would cause some
international crisis that would trigger WW3!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


You are definately misunderstanding what I'm saying. We'll take Zacharia Stichin for this example. Some use him as a reliable source and is the main backing for a thread. Then people attack the source as being faulty and it turns into an argument on Zacharia Stichins credibility rather then what is being said by the OP. So, I'm not talking absolutes here I would just like to see a census on sources so people can yes use Zacharia Stichin, but also tie in what Zach is saying with what some of the other sources are saying so people(posters and readers alike) can start to get a rounder and more full view of topics instead of just using the one source which will get attacked, but post those sources that attack your statement aswell as the ones that support it. So people can really start seeing more fuller and in-depth research being done and better arguments for yourself aswell.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


Here we go I'm very glad you brought that up. What is considered a reliable source? If an enitre thread can be demoslished, because of its source it's time to try rectify that situation just a little bit. I'm not talking absolute, cut and dry statements here. I'm just trying to get a little census going on what the majority consider reliable and which don't. I like well rounded discussions and I like to hear both ends of what's being said. To often people don't post other sources mainly other sources that contradict their own, because they don't know where to look. I think if people can start to know where to look for sources of something they can see what most people's opinion here is of it, but also being able to rip information from the sources in any topic. Thus making for better discussions in general; because people will be posting more sources aswell as the other end of the argument, and hopefully taking it one step further then just posting the arguments, but breaking them down in comparison to his own topic.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


You are definately misunderstanding what I'm saying. We'll take Zacharia Stichin for this example. Some use him as a reliable source and is the main backing for a thread. Then people attack the source as being faulty and it turns into an argument on Zacharia Stichins credibility rather then what is being said by the OP. So, I'm not talking absolutes here I would just like to see a census on sources so people can yes use Zacharia Stichin, but also tie in what Zach is saying with what some of the other sources are saying so people(posters and readers alike) can start to get a rounder and more full view of topics instead of just using the one source which will get attacked, but post those sources that attack your statement aswell as the ones that support it. So people can really start seeing more fuller and in-depth research being done and better arguments for yourself aswell.


If that's the case, you're not being clear and concise as to what it is you actually want to achieve here...Perhaps your idea isn't being understood as you want it to be because its vague to begin with ?

Again, you fail to convince me this is a good idea...And I'm not going thru my reasons for this again, as valid as they still are...

End of discussion from my side, no more posts from me as we're just going round in circles which is pointless...

Next !



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Retrovertigo
 


Wow guy classy move; I guess discussions are over when you make that decision. I guess if enough people think it's a bad idea it won't hold any water and if it's a good one it will. My only question to you is, is it fair to dismiss threads based on their sources and if it is, what kind of sources are "acceptable" and how can we remedy the issue? Either all sources are valid or we have redo how we use sources that simple, but this bull**** about threads turning into arguments over the sources cited is annoying and I am atleast being constructive other then just complaining about it...



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Here is how I decide legitimacy.

Youtube video only= not legitimate.

Youtube video plus one news source(msm)=acceptable

Youtube video plus one msm source plus one local news source= above average acceptable

I hope you get the point.

The Daily Mail is one rag I see that gets major play as an only source in many many OPs. Not acceptable. The Daily Mail is akin to using The National Enquirer as your only source and expecting people to accept it as legitimate.

If a great story is in a tabloid type press, it will be sourced in legitimate places as well, take that extra few and google some extra sources.

BLOGS= unacceptable.

BLOGS + more than one legitimate source= acceptable.

Do not expect to be taken seriously if your OP is a copypasta of someone else's copypasta blog.

Seven youtube videos + OMG Look At This= unacceptable. I loathe the all youtube post, I am sorry but they are always a turn off.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to expand upon my ideas/guidelines.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Let me just point out:
1. You cannot accurately identify a "valid" source through majority opinion.
2. Sometimes the ONLY source you have is someone blogging on a topic due to MSM censorship or lack of MSM attention on a particular subject.
3. No source, no matter how wonderful you think it is, is 100% correct 100% of the time.
4. May I remind you that you are on a ***conspiracy theory*** website. When it comes to conspiracies, you almost NEVER have a source of information. When was the last time the Guardian reported that FEMA set up relocation camps for the purpose of imprisoning (using the new buzzword) "anti-government extremists". Where are you going to find a source that details the incorporation of the Federal Government?
Catch my drift? #4 is the most important.

I believe ATS was set up to DENY IGNORANCE. Invalidating sources of information just because some people don't like it is PROMOTING IGNORANCE.

I will say that standing in your shoes, I understand where you're coming from. You need to just learn to sort out the good sources from the bad, or if you can't do that, just post in the threat and ask someone to validate the source.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Reply to post by dbloch7986
 


Oh god. I meant to say "post in the thread***". Sorry everyone. The NSA's filter just tagged my previous post because od my typo. Sorry sorry. They're probably already reviewing this post.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
the notion of a legitimate source is wishful thinking. the major media in the world are owned by a handful of conglomerates who own all print and entertainment so determine what is published. they do have an agenda, and though it is primarily to make money, they are the gatekeepers. so nothing very interesting or alternative is going to show up anywhere of distinction. we now have many specialized news sites who report tidbits of interest to them. sometimes they do and sometimes they don't include their sources. yesterday i read an article about how farmville is the most widely played game in the world right now and presented figures to prove it. i didn't attempt to see if that was correct because i don't care. we also have bloggers who are telling what they know and believe, sometimes interchangeably. information in our world is such that there is NO WAY to determine how closely it resembles reality (my way of saying "truth" without being philosophical). For most of us, a reliable source is simply one we usually agree with! that proves it's the truth, right?

it seems to me that ATS is a microcosm of the world of information. a vast mix of stuff that each must sift through personal judgments and belief. on ATS, people usually turn up on threads who point out inconsistencies or validating details. that helps. don't rely on official sources. learn to decide legitimacy for yourself by what information is presented and how it compares to what you know.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dbloch7986
 


Let me make this clear, I do not want anything censored. I want to read it all, the bad and the good. What I was trying to establish is some ground rules or something so that people's threads can stop being side-tracked, because people don't agree with the source in which the person is pulling his information from. I can't even begin to name the times I've started to read a good thread, people start arguing about the sources, and the thread ends up going no where, because the OP spent his time fighting and defending. I guess a little order in all the chaos is just unacceptable. Whatever, if people are content with the way ATS oprates and feel nothing should be done, fine with me. I was just simply trying to get some people together to talk about ways of making sources easier to get, show people's opinion on sources and come up with a way of organizing the sources so that people can start arguing on the OP's ideas instead of the sources. I guess I'm wrong? Won't be the first time, was just tryin to help...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join