Zone1 The Value of Links?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Do you think overall that academia is “unbiased”?

It’s arguably the most radical institution in our country

Yet Rightists Preach That Going to College Is the Best "Choice"

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, they have a strong bias toward evidence and truth. There are a few exceptions.

Academentia

This obsolete class-biased institution has a strong confirmation bias towards selected evidence. It's called "Scholasticism."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

facts are unbiased.




facts are unbiased.

Facts Are Straws for Strange and Scraggly Nerds to Build Straw Houses With

 

[Grumblenuts]

& for the love of god - WIKI, facebook, twitter & 'truth' social ARE NOT legit sources.

Wikipedia remains of much greater "value" than the others.

 

[konradv]

How to Find Credible Sources for Research​

How can you find credible sources for research and avoid misinformation? Your instructor likely recommends avoiding general web content or Wikipedia.

Finding the most reliable websites for research starts with evaluating the website itself. Sites run by academic or government organizations rank high in reliability. Databases and specialized search engines can also provide good research sources.

Next, make sure you understand the source of the information and the process used to publish it. Scholarly articles and books that undergo peer review make for the best academic resources.
10 Best Online Websites and Resources for Academic Research | BestColleges

Facts are facts! There are no alternatives.

Defintion of "fact" from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

• the quality of being actual
• something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence

Though this term has been politicized, fake news is a real problem and represents information that is completely fabricated. There may be bias in mainstream news sources, but this is not the same as intentionally presenting false information.

Usually this takes the form of sites that purport to be major news sites, but are not. For example, abc.co.uk instead of abc.com. Sometimes newer, fringe news organizations rise in popularity and share overwhelmingly biased sources. Some of these will combine false information alongside facts presented in an extremely biased manner.
LibGuides: Evaluating Information: Vetting Your Sources: Hot Topics: What is Fake News?

' Libguides' is short for Library guides ' NOT 'liberal guides '

& for the love of god - WIKI, facebook, twitter & 'truth' social ARE NOT legit sources.

I feel Wikipedia is valuable for the source material it cites, which you can then check for yourself.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ummm okay.

Nice Copy Paste of some activism

This poster also cites ProPublica a lot here, so its credibility re 'legitimate sources' is about as trustworthy as that Jon Levitt character on SNL that compulsively lies all the time. No sense in pretending its ever going to give honest answers to anything, might as well just go the Democratic Underground and see its real sources directly.

 

[playtime]

LMAO.

You’re the one threatened by someone questioning an institution.

not at all. opinions & theories are supposta be questioned. i never said otherwise. what i SAID - was FACTS are FACTS. there are no 'alternative' facts.

opinions are not facts. theories are acceptable if there are no facts to prove otherwise.

Let me guess, you believe “the science” is a monolith of unquestionable force (only when “it” supports you)?

never said that either. that is why i used the word ' exact '.

no matter how you slice it , dice it, & sprinkle it with fairy dust ...

1 + 2 will always equal 3 & that is a fact, jack.

you had to be team Fauci, right?

yep.

Isn’t it incredible how many believed him and how wrong he was?

lol ... sure.

i don't think he was, based on all the factual scientific data that is out there. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............

i'm gonna play devil's advocate here, m'k?

remember when i said medicine is NOT an exact science?

well.... ^^^ that ^^^

 

[Billo_Really]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

I agree.

 

[playtime]

I feel Wikipedia is valuable for the source material it cites, which you can then check for yourself.

wiki is a good go to for common knowledge stuff, but it's not to be trusted as a credible source in & of itself. not since the days of sarah palin's ' paul revere ' story that her people were able to manipulate & edit info to make her look like she was educated; & that's why it can't be used for research papers.

 

[playtime]

This poster also cites ProPublica a lot here,

false. why do you lie?

i might have used them once or twice - but certainly not a lot

& IF i ever did - it is because of their FACTUAL reporting. JUST LIKE NYT & WaPO & WSJ.

so its credibility re 'legitimate sources' is about as trustworthy as that Jon Levitt character on SNL that compulsively lies all the time. No sense in pretending its ever going to give honest answers to anything, might as well just go the Democratic Underground and see its real sources directly.

lol ...

 

[playtime]

Wikipedia remains of much greater "value" than the others.

understood. wiki is a good jumping off point, but just like snippets of 'news' that is reported on TV etc, needs to be searched out further for validation. so, ya - perhaps it shouldn't have been lumped in with the others that usually have no sourcing whatsoever.

 

[DudleySmith]

false. why do you lie?

i might have used them once or twice - but certainly not a lot

^^^lol stupid moron doesn't know about search features here, and thinks the two dozen or so times it has cited PP rubbish in just the last couple of years just disappears or something. lol what an idiot. Those who have nothing better to do can search for the dumbass's other ridiculously biased 'objective sources' for their own amusement,

 

[playtime]

This poster also cites ProPublica a lot here, so its credibility re 'legitimate sources' is about as trustworthy as that Jon Levitt character on SNL that compulsively lies all the time. No sense in pretending its ever going to give honest answers to anything, might as well just go the Democratic Underground and see its real sources directly.

i just did a search on myself using the key word 'propublica ' & came up with 1 single page AND some of them aren't any kind of used sourcing.

so you sir - are a liar liar, pantaloons on fire!

 

[DudleySmith]

& IF i ever did - it is because of their FACTUAL reporting.

Hahaha if any of it was 'factual; you would never post it.

 

[playtime]

^^^lol stupid moron doesn't know about search features here, and thinks the two dozen or so times it has cited PP rubbish in just the last couple of years just disappears or something. lol what an idiot. Those who have nothing better to do can search for the dumbass's other ridiculously biased 'objective sources' for their own amusement,

oh my - another one who can't abide by simple guidlines in zone 1.

lol ... why are you so triggered? & you think calling me 'it' & whatever else is a sign of intelligence?

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..........................

 

[DudleySmith]

i just did a search on myself using the key word 'propublica ' & came up with 1 single page AND some of them aren't any kind of sourcing.

so you sir - are a liar liar, pantaloons on fire!

Says the idiot who claimed it only cited the sleazy rag 'a couple of times'. lol now it doubles down on Stupid. Time for it to run and snivel to a biased mod, like they all do when somebody makes them cry.

 

[DudleySmith]

h my - another one who can't abide by simple guidlines in zone 1.

lol so yes, the gimp will race to a mod to change its diapers for it.

 

[playtime]

Says the idiot who claimed it only cited the sleazy rag 'a couple of times'.

relatively speaking, that is accurate. less than 20 x since 2015?

ummmm.... yep.

lol now it doubles down on Stupid. Time for it to run and snivel to a biased mod, like they all do when somebody makes them cry.

i don't report any one, except ironically in the games section. i have a couple times because others try to crap in a neutral area of the forum.

YOU are not worthy of such action by me.

 

[DudleySmith]

relatively speaking, that is accurate. less than 20 x since 2015?

ummmm.... yep.




i don't report any one, except ironically in the games section. i have a couple times because others try to crap in a neutral area of the forum.

YOU are not worthy of such action by me.

Still hoping to look like less of an idiot? lol well, go ahead and 'Post Last', then. It won't do you any good.

 

[playtime]

Still hoping to look like less of an idiot?

based on yer opinion?

lol well, go ahead and 'Post Last', then. It won't do you any good.