It has often been brought up that one must have proof to back up their claims. Not only must this proof contain "reliable" sources or "widely"
accepted beliefs, they must be deemed as such by persons unknown.
Persons unknown meaning that in some threads, people would condone a website for it's information or statistics, whereas in other threads it would
be ridiculed. This is to say that there is no set standard for "reliable" or "acceptable" sources. While many would say that sources such as YouTube
or Wiki's are unacceptable or unreliable, the same may be said for many media outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, etc.
To suggest that any source is unreliable is merely in the eye of the beholder. Anyone can make a set standard for said sources, but would that make
anyone more likely to believe the information?
Just as an example, over the internet I can say anything I want. In real life, I can be just as deceptive or revealing in my information. Just
because words on a webpage say someone said something does not mean they did. In this day and age any source of information is to be deemed by many as
either reliable or not. No one source is acceptable, save those such as dictionaries or websites providing formulas, etc.
I can say right now I am 40 years old, I have an education in Marine Biology and make $40,000 dollars a year.
I could also say I am 16 years old, almost done with high school, and work at a burger joint.
Information, even if seen with your own eyes such as documents or statistical graphs, is not always reliable.
To say a source is reliable is merely labeling something as such, and even then, acceptable sources-such as government blogs or news outlets-have
been and most likely currently are being manipulated in what information they release.
In the Journalism Industry, even "reliable" people use certain words and context's. Even reading the daily news paper, you will find that each
story, each release of information will be biased. The way one uses words will affect the way your information is put out to your audience.
There are three ways of writing.
1)To put the truth out.-Even if one does not have a very good grasp of the English language, you will be able to detect subtle inflections on their
words. In this style you will be able to tell whether information is being passed along or not.
2)Put a positive spin on things-This is more of a supportive type of writing. You will be able to detect the authors statements as those of support.
They will often portray their subject as one of good will or heroism.
3)Put a negative spin on things-This is where an author will display their disagreement with the subject. They will use words to put a damper on
things and try to evoke negative feelings on the subject.
Through the use of the last 2 types, I believe the government has seen ahead and established such a scene as to where they have defined what is and
is not reliable. Reliability is seen in the eye of the beholder. No one will be able to discern what is and is not truth except by the way they think.
Even so, one will not even know the truth unless they were there or see the effects of actions.
I'm not really sure if I am conveying this message appropriately or even clearly. I would like to see what others think. This is truth to me, I
really have no sources, though one could look and see how each thing I have mentioned falls in to place with our reality.
You should be able to replace 'reliable' with 'credibility' or 'validation' and still make sense of my point here.
edit on 23-6-2011 by
Xen0m0rpH because: Trying to define a little more clearly.