Credible sources in debating on MMO-C.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Hey all, just curious to see a general idea of which often used sources are credible and which aren't at all. Sometimes when debating one side or another, people reply with "thats a bad source" etc.

Sometimes I think a reply like that is just a shitty excuse, and others I probably agree.

So what are your opinions? Which sources are always credible, and which should never, ever be used.

[Pull My Finger]

Wikipedia is always good.
Conservative blog sites are always good.
Blueposts are always wrong.
GCs twitter is always wrong.

[belfpala]

I tried to google "which sources are good" and the first several hits were about food...

DAMN YOU GOOGLE!!!!

Or does everyone get that?

[Deleted]

wikipedia and bbc are decent

[Darkinfinity]

Wikipedia is always good.
Conservative blog sites are always good.
Blueposts are always wrong.
GCs twitter is always wrong.

....ROFL

xD

[Stir]

Wikipedia is a good source to back up your argument, but a bad source to prove it. If your wiki article doesn't refer to a paper... Don't bother.
Any source with a small sample size is easily dismissed.
Any source that aims to advertise for a certain point of view rather than attempts to discover is biased, and therefore, wrong.

Stuff like that.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Wikipedia is a good source to back up your argument, but a bad source to prove it. If your wiki article doesn't refer to a paper... Don't bother.
Any source with a small sample size is easily dismissed.
Any source that aims to advertise for a certain point of view rather than attempts to discover is biased, and therefore, wrong.

Stuff like that.

Most people don't even know Wikipedia has its own sources most of them time XD

Couldn't a biased site have credible sources though? I try to avoid them, as many many of the bigger media outlets like MSNBC and Fox have been accused of lying a lot...

[MerinPally]

Wikipedia is fantastic for anything about science and maths, bad for anything which you may study from 14-16 though as kids doing coursework will edit it sometimes. High level science/maths, the symbols scare away idiots so they don't touch.

[Deleted]

Reuters, Al-Jazeira, universities, ...

Forget about tabloids, they are often so wrong, one-sided and biased its not even funny.

[Deleted]

Couldn't a biased site have credible sources though? I try to avoid them, as many many of the bigger media outlets like MSNBC and Fox have been accused of lying a lot...

Biased site's sources don't matter when the backup provided are in the biased site itself. If the provider cared one bit about credibility he would refer to the source.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Biased site's sources don't matter when the backup provided are in the biased site itself. If the provider cared one bit about credibility he would refer to the source.

Very good point.

[Deleted]

BBC, Reuters, Academic Journals, Scientific magazines, UN agencies, the "Guardian" :P

[Itisamuh]

If you agree with it it's good, if you disagree with it it's bad. At least that's the trend I've noticed.

[belfpala]

BBC, Reuters, Academic Journals, Scientific magazines, UN agencies, the "Guardian" :P

DailyMail? No?

[Deleted]

DailyMail? No?

Rofl, there is no harm in quoting the Daily Mail, it was one of the few Broadsheet's in the UK but in terms of quality I think the Guardian and Independent offer more in depth coverage that is as impartial or close to impartiality as newspapers can get these days. I wonder how many would quote the "Sun" or the Daily Star :P

[Karragon]

DailyMail? No?

DailyMail is as "credible" as the bbc and the guardian, just in the opposite direction

[belfpala]

Rofl, there is no harm in quoting the Daily Mail, it was one of the few Broadsheet's in the UK but in terms of quality I think the Guardian and Independent offer more in depth coverage that is as impartial or close to impartiality as newspapers can get these days. I wonder how many would quote the "Sun" or the Daily Star :P

It was a joke. It would be like saying the NY Times is pretty good (it is) and then in the same breath saying the NY Post is good (it isn't).

(not brand bashing... the Post has its place as entertainment).

[Tonk]

pretty sure the guardian is quite biased, and that it shows in their reporting.

in general if a source is being criticised by both sides in a conflict for being biased toward the other side, then there is a good chance that they are an organisation that strives to be unbiased..... note it doesn't mean that every individual report or reporter in completely unbiased though. e.g. Reuters is often condemned by both Israel and Palestine. each has had good reason to criticse at times, but in the main it's a reliable source there.... having said that Reuters has also had its editorial division decimated over the past few years since the acquisition by Thomson. There are still "a few good men" as it were but there is also a shift in focus more towards profit that many current and ex employees feel damages the reputation for being unbiased.

most newspapers are biased one way or another. Even "the independant" which is so called because it was formed with the intention of being unbiased.

on topic I say that good sauces include BBQ, sweet n sour, chili, Tabasco.

[belfpala]

on topic I say that good sauces include BBQ, sweet n sour, chili, Tabasco.

Three sauces that originated North/Central America???? No love for Worcesterstterstershire, or even simple malt vinegar?

[Baracuda]

Anything left/right extremist is usually a bad source, unless they have good external sources...