Source/citation shaming

[Deathquoi]

The truth, for some, is only what they wish to believe my friend.

No, what the fuck? The truth is not subjective. The truth is objective fact. If I shoot your dog, and then you say "hey what the hell why did you shoot my dog" and I say "wasn't me dude", the truth is that I still shot your dog.

[Allybeboba]

No, what the fuck? The truth is not subjective. The truth is objective fact. If I shoot your dog, and then you say "hey what the hell why did you shoot my dog" and I say "wasn't me dude", the truth is that I still shot your dog.

The gun shot your dog. Easily spun to fit a narrative.

[madethisfor1post]

Because source shaming isn't an actual thing. Stop citing shitty sources and people will take you seriously. If you write a paper for school and you cite some idiot's blog as your source, are you gonna complain to the professor that he/she is "source shaming" when you get an F?

No he'll claim the professor has a liberal bias and post a story on trueamericanpatriot.com about how a College Professor failed him for being white/cis/male/independant and not for the real reason in that he cited his uncle Cleb's facebook post meme involving some made up facts from the department of alt-left minority handouts about a dark-skinned person using his EBT card to get cigarettes thus the whole of welfare (except military) is corrupt.

[Darththeo]

Source shaming has always been a thing ... in fact, it is 100% acceptable in the academic community if you use bias sources to support your stance. I am always hesitant when I read a paper that doesn't cite who in a government position said something. The nameless scientist or spokesperson is always annoying. Quoting of opinion pieces as factual (seriously, I have seen opinion).

Obvious logical fallacies used like quote minding, cherry picking, etc ...

Sources aren't all equal, I can tell you the number of times as an atheist and scientist I have encountered people quoting sources with a known and active history of bias and misinformation as factual. You can also source your sources to determine legitimacy, like when an article quotes someone, they should if honest like to an full interview (preferably the full raw interview).

This last election proved people on both sides didn't understand sources.

[Dumpster Account]

The gun shot your dog. Easily spun to fit a narrative.

That's a narrative laced with deception, which then ceases to be the truth.

[Mehrunes]

Wut? You were directly answered at least twice.

They don't count because it's a case of "The truth, for some (some being the OP in this instance), is only what they wish to believe" as well as "As been proved time and time again on this thread, the 'truth' is in the the eye of the beholder."

[Orange Joe]

That is partly why I created this thread. Hoping to open some eyes, if only a few. Most opinions will not be swayed as their personalities will not allow it.

So it's to open everyone elses eyes? But not yours because you are already woke right?

[Orbitus]

Or the BBC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP....

Fake news is fake news.

Nothing that you linked is fake news. But what Grimbold linked is. Fox News has the least credibility when it comes to being accurate on cable news channels.

[Mehrunes]

So it's to open everyone elses eyes? But not yours because you are already woke right?

Like a true independent!

[Deathquoi]

The gun shot your dog. Easily spun to fit a narrative.

But that's not the truth then. You seem to be confused about what the word "truth" means.

[Orbitus]

The truth, for some, is only what they wish to believe my friend.

No, the truth is based on facts. If they choose to ignore that, like you often do, then they are biased, like you are.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Person 1; Sweden will be a 3rd world country by 2030!
Person 2; Where'd you get that idea?
Person 1; From Speisa.
Person 2 then goes to this website, and indeed there is an article making these claims. There are no citations, no sources provided other than the mention of a "UN report". Person 2 digs deeper and finds that there was a UN report, but it didn't say anything of that sort and was also discarded due to flawed methods of research. Person 2 tells this to person 1 and provides new source material for him to read.
Person 1; LOL YOU'RE BRAINWASHED BY THE LIBRULS LOLO HAVE FUN IN UR 3RD WORLD COUNTRY CUCK!!!
Person 2; *sigh*...

The thing is, most of the times when people source/citation shame, it's for good reasons. When those linking to those sources do the shaming, it's because they read a story staying true to their own bias and don't want to know anything else.

So source shaming can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing. If you're "shamed" for the sources you provide, then surely you'd be able to dig up more in-depth and credible sources to counter it. Unless you're representing Person 1, in which case, tough shit. The web will become less tolerant towards fake* news.












*Fake news does not simply mean news you agree or disagree with. Fake news are just that, blatant lies, and usually used to further a political agenda or even just to get clicks for money. The fact that we live in a time where a term such as "alternative facts" could ever become a thing is downright despicable.

[toxicrusader]

I hate when I cite alternative facts as sources and people mock me...

[unbound]

Is source/citation shaming against the 'rules'?
I often see people link a source for their information when people ask for such and then people hand wave such sources off. They say they are not "credible" sources.

Simple statement rules here. Not everything on the internet is true.

In general, here is a good graphic to let you know the quality of common news sources:



I don't care if you are sourcing your news from Breitbart and Infowars, or Natural News and Addicting Info, those are garbage sites...and people who think that there is good information on such sites deserve to be ridiculed to some extent.

If you are sourcing important information from either The Huffington Post or Fox News, you really need to find secondary (and much more reliable) sources. Both are known for some of the fake news out there, but more commonly they are missing important pieces of context that results in a twisted view of reality.

Keep in mind that any news source can be wrong from time to time. So despite idiots who think all mainstream media is fake news, much of the mainstream media is not trying to deceive people...it just that sometimes the quality of their journalism isn't as good as they want to believe (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post).

For quality journalism stick to the circle labelled "Great in-depth sources of news", and I would recommend using all of them. I also strongly recommend that you take the time to read entire articles as there are too many people that want to pull out a line here or there and twist in their minds until that line doesn't match the point of the article when taken in context.

This is partly why I rarely, if ever, link sources to my information. People will just say they "don't believe" the source or simply discredit the source. It is easier just to have the person have them look it up for themselves.

It really depends on your source. If you are using the bottom tier of news sources, then you really need to improve those sources. If you are using the upper tier of news sources, then ignore the idiots who think all news sources are fake.

[JohnBrown1917]

The fascists in the US right now are the ones who claim they're left and are far more dangerous.

What left wingers?

[Eviscero]

What I find troubling is when adults haven't developed the capacity to discriminate for themselves what is reliable and what is "reliable" (to use the notation of our OP).

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Occupy Democrats is probably a place to avoid. Have a relative that posts a lot there or shares stuff from there.

[Taso]

You have to be joking....a book can be written biased :P

lol. And so what if it is biased so is the news. If you tell me cnn is the epitome of honesty I can say they use heavy words that sensationalize an event. I can argue the same with the national review being heavy on conservative based wording. At the end of it all its how you feel the information is handled. I lean towards history so the books I read obviously are not going to be sincere since they don't care for feelings they write criticizing and explaining the event. You'd be amazed how many times I found in a book telling me that socialism is not Karl Marx's invention but rather an elaboration. An idea that has gone further back then most care to know. So to me a book cant be edited and manipulated easily. An online article can be.

[Hotto Pantsu]

Simple statement rules here. Not everything on the internet is true.

In general, here is a good graphic to let you know the quality of common news sources:



I don't care if you are sourcing your news from Breitbart and Infowars, or Natural News and Addicting Info, those are garbage sites...and people who think that there is good information on such sites deserve to be ridiculed to some extent.

If you are sourcing important information from either The Huffington Post or Fox News, you really need to find secondary (and much more reliable) sources. Both are known for some of the fake news out there, but more commonly they are missing important pieces of context that results in a twisted view of reality.

Keep in mind that any news source can be wrong from time to time. So despite idiots who think all mainstream media is fake news, much of the mainstream media is not trying to deceive people...it just that sometimes the quality of their journalism isn't as good as they want to believe (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post).

For quality journalism stick to the circle labelled "Great in-depth sources of news", and I would recommend using all of them. I also strongly recommend that you take the time to read entire articles as there are too many people that want to pull out a line here or there and twist in their minds until that line doesn't match the point of the article when taken in context.



It really depends on your source. If you are using the bottom tier of news sources, then you really need to improve those sources. If you are using the upper tier of news sources, then ignore the idiots who think all news sources are fake.

Lol at that pic. Vox and slate in-depth non-bias and CNN, damn boy. I'll sue you for making me spit my drink.

[Techno-Druid]

Salon, Breitbart, Daily Stormer, etcetera are not credible sources.