It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kevinunknown
It seems to me that on ATS source’s seem to be held in very high regard. We seem to have this attitude that says if you can back it up with a source then it must be true. Yet the value of the source is not debated and sometimes not even the content is challenged.
For example why is that so often Wikipedia is used as a source, despite the fact that if I wanted to I can log on and fill it with all the disinformation that I want?
Wikipedia is an incredibly inconsistent and inaccurate source of information, it may provide a good overview of a topic but to use it as a source that backs up or proves a point is futile. Quite often the information sourced in Wikipedia comes from bias sources and sometimes the information is simply the result of information someone has wrote in a blog or online forum.
The sources that I think are reliable come respectable news outlets, books by respected authors (no David icke please) and even some websites on the internet that give balanced information and specialise in a particular topic.
peers tested academic papers that are a perfect source
However they are still much more reliable than the other sources I have outlined above.
I therefore believe that the real source of disinformation on ATS is not the users but the sources themselves.