I have a question for all ATS.

reply to post by agentofchaos


There are a LOT of people on this board who
won't believe anything,period!
If you show pictures,they will claim they are fakes,
or doctored.
If you show videos,same as above.
God forbid, if you voice your opinion and it doesn't agree
with their opinion.
Something would have to either...
Land in front of them,blow up in front of them,or
abduct them personally.
They want proof!BUT,only from sources they consider
reliable.Don't you just love a challenge?

I don't know if anyone has said this yet.

WND.com,

NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE!

any Blog,

NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE!

thedailymail.com

NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE!

If at all possible, go to the actual source information with your postings. If you are posting a news article about some other source, try and find that source.



[edit on 4/23/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by agentofchaos
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...

Stop being a friggin cry-baby because a few people panned your idea...Grow up already !

I said the discussion between you and me was over, as I didn't want to go round and round in circles...You failed to convince me yours was a good idea, and continuing to try to do so was a waste of my time...Where did I say the discussion was over, period ??

I didn't...Again, stop being such a goddamned sook...

I think its perfectly fair for INDIVIDUALS to dismiss or not dismiss ANYTHING for ANY reason...That's called freedom of choice, digger...Devo wrote a song about it, you should check it out some time...

I don't think its an issue because there is no issue here...Sources are like almost everything else, up to the individual whether they accept them and indeed the content of the thread or not...

You find arguments over sources annoying, so do a couple of other people and it seems the majority of ATS doesn't give a rats...And ?

I'm not going to apologise for the tone of this post, as you absolutely deserved it for your whiny little diatribe at the start of your post...It was pathetic

Now...The discussion between you and I over this issue is finished...However, if you continue to post crap directed at me like your last post, I will respond, and if you didn't like the tone of this post, trust me, you really will not like the tone of my next...



[edit on 23/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]

If people are concerned about the validity of a source, I suppose that we could just use scholarly, peer-reviewed works. Encyclopedias and dictionaries as well.

Beyond that, I think that the way ATS is at the moment is okay, "bad" sources and all. It should be each persons goal to determine themselves whether a source is valid or not. The problem with creating a "good/bad" source list, particularly on this board, is that we all have presuppositions and on some issues a truly valid resource could be excluded (since most likely "majority rules" would determine validity).

For example, there are countless excellent, scholarly resources available regarding the origins of Christianity. Since, though, there is a large percentage of people on this board that believe that Christianity is a copy-cat faith, these resources would be excluded because many members would believe that they're flawed and disreputable, due to the members' presuppositions. Know what I mean?

That's not the only thing it would be restricted to. Valid resources could, and would, be excluded in virtually every conceivable topic if enough members were to say that a resource wasn't reputable!

The better thing to do is let all sources have the chance to stand on their own. If a source is truly good, it's going to be able to continue to stand. If a source isn't as reputable, it won't. Along with that, the membership needs to do research so that on their own they can determine if and why a source can or can't be trusted. (And demonstrate why in the future.)

reply to post by Retrovertigo


Nothing cry-babyish about anything I said. You were the one blowing up. i get it you think it's bad idea I explained what I was trying to and you disagreed. It's not a big deal. It's like you acting that I'm suppose to just take what you're sayin and lie down. And as far as anything I said being pathetic, that's just your opinion on the subject and if you don't want to be a part of the discussion just leave, don't come back and start calling names and being childish. Again, I think you're the one who is angry and should tone it down multiple of notches. Still nothing wrong with organizing sources. By the way, it's more the just a couple of people on ATS who dislike it and pardon me for trying to contribute in some way.

Originally posted by agentofchaos
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.

Thats one of the tasks of ATS, someone brings up a story with a source and its our duty to debunk it if possible or better the research if valid.

A. There is NO requirement that says you MUST have a source...ONLY if you are using someone else's work is it REQUIRED...

B. That said, if you want to make a CONVINCING argument, it's best to have a source (or better, multiple sources), and that source should be generally accepted as CREDIBLE...

C. So, what is credible? Easiest solution is to apply the same rules as academia. An APA or MLA guide (even an online version) could help here (two common standards for academic writing). As a quick note, Wikipedia and blogs are NOT considered to be "academic" resources... Doesn't mean you can't use them, but if it is your SOLE backup, expect to get what's coming....

D. If you REALLY want to bolster your position, use "peer-reviewed" sources such as professional journals, etc. Granted, this will be difficult to find for most CT topics, but they are out there...

sorry, but I haven't read all of the replies to this topic, so forgive me if I restate something, or don't continue the flow of conversation. Reliable source are like a diamond in the rough, you have to reaserch everything regardless. Even reputable site post garbage from time to time, as frivalous sites occiasionally have something of note. Building a database would lead some to believe that their source content from certain will always be valid, or never to be trusted. Chastising will only provoke a fight, as overwhelming evidence would be a better approuch to disprove. When I'm proven wrong, I not only happily admit to it, but I learn at the same time.