So what source is a reliable source?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
This has really started to bug me. On every post, in regards to their sources the replies will be: "You got this from (insert MSM or alternative media source here) and you believe it? Find a real source." or something along those lines.

So, what are acceptable sources? You can find detailed information on nearly anything on Wikipedia, yet that's "not a real source" because it's peer edited.

What sources do you trust?




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
For me it is multiple sources. That doesn't mean multiple websites just copying a single source article either which happens a lot of the time. There are certainly some websites that I trust more than others but if there are several articles all written independently of each other - it would make things easier to believe.

I for one do trust Wikipedia for the most part because it is peer edited. If information there is incorrect it can be edited by anyone. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has all of the information, but what they do have I trust to be fairly accurate.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


The really only credible source is: The actual words and actions of the subject in question.

Source dismissal is a game. If the quote from the person in question is reported from Fox news, say... the apologist can dismiss the facts with the wave of a "Fox Lies!" hand.

The facts such as verbatim quote, are unimportant.

How this sort of thing can be gotten away with, may be due to the reliability in which leftists cite wildly fantastic nonsense from radical fringe sources, that are immediately denounced by sensible folks.

This has the effect of opening the door to summary denouncement of all sources, credible and not.

Web sites such as Newsbusters painstakingly chronicles the laughable agenda driven bias, quite often at the cost of facts and reality, advanced by the so called mainstream media.

The advantage of a compliant media refusing to recognise & report on certain inconvenient events has the benefit of the ability to denounce any news outlet that reports an event unflattering to a particular agenda.

The apologist can then say, see? No one else is reporting that! It can't be credible!

Stick to your guns, rely on actual, in context quotes, recorded and documented actions and consequences. Its been my long experience that leftists tend to be unimpressed by, and reject facts. This is likely to preserve a useful ignorance.

Remember; it's not about the facts, it's the narrative that's most important to folks of a particular persuasion. So don't bang your head against a brick wall.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 
When it comes to Wikipedia sometimes it is good, unbiased information and sometimes the information is very biased depending on the scruples of the last person who edited it. That is the biggest problem with peer provided information- some people just can't seem to keep their personal opinions and feelings out of it. Sourcing Wikipedia is in some ways like sourcing a movie review. Sometimes you get an unbiased informational review, but a lot of the time you get a review based on the personal tastes of the one writing the review. In such a case I think it is okay if you want to source Wiki providing you add other sources that back up the information presented.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


I have noticed a long time ago that whatever source fits someones viewpoint seems to be the "right" one. Some people want to have it both ways. On one hand , "don't trust the mainstream media man! you're a sheep!" or " Hey, look! My viewpoint is finally being taken seriously! Right on msm!"



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
If it is on the intetnet or tv news... It's a lie.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
"That's not a credible source" is bandied around when the poster has nothing else to say mostly. Or as a straw man. The truth is, there are no credible sources. And yet, they're all credible. Even Wiki and Sorcha Faal.


ALL sources should be questioned and checked. By trusting one source, and rejecting another, your research becomes lopsided and subjective. If you want objectivity, you check all sources equally. No matter what their reputation is.





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join