A long-lingering, and possibly unsolvable question.

I'll keep it simple, what (in the consensus of ATS) is considered 'valid' sources?

I only ask because in the years I have been here, it seems that no one can agree which sources are considered 'valid.' Does that mean that none are? Time and again, I will read;

"We (not sure who they are talking about here exactly) don't accept (insert website name here) as a valid source."

Perhaps the mods and staff here at this organization would like to enlighten their membership as to what is considered 'valid,' and what is not. A final determination would silence a lot of people who's only response to a thread (which I thought simple replies were frowned upon?) is the above.

reply to post by Chronogoblin


A valid source is the one that supports your thoughts and ideas. Anything else is not valid. That's what I've found anyway.

reply to post by Chronogoblin


As a long time ATS member. I'm sure you've watched the evolution of some sites that make certain claims, that are so outrageous they are proven to be hoaxes rapidly. Those same sites over time have done nothing to polish their image, so to speak. But continue to post more of the same for click phishing and financial gain.

It doesn't take being a rocket scientist to learn, over time, who is slapping up crap to draw the flies that feed their pockets.

So to answer your question. Yes, some sources have earned the reputation of not being valid, nor reputable bringers of truth.

Des

reply to post by Chronogoblin


The majority of sources on ATS could be considered valid.

Whether they are credible or not should be the issue here perhaps?

So... basically... it's open to interpretation. Like I thought. Also, I figured it would be something along those lines. I suppose I was hoping for a more concise consensus. My original thought being; There is no such list, so no sources are valid, as every source will have someone claiming opposition. So basically, my original thought of people asking for sources, or people saying that such-and-such website isn't valid, are both wastes of time, as no one will ever accept the same sources as canonical.

Answer being: No source is valid, and people should just stop asking for a 'credible' one, because one doesn't exist.