Sources (1 Viewer)

[Thelost1]

When browsing this forum I noticed that people, when posting quotes from other sites, will often have their entire argument ignored due to the site that they have posted from. Even sources like Wikipedia have been accused of being partisan/biased/whatever.

My proposal is that the mod team, perhaps with the help of some members, compiles a list of sources that are and aren't credible. This list would be in no way set in stone, and not a "you didn't quote one of these sites, your argument is flawed" resource.

I believe that this would benefit the Debate Politics forum because it would tone down pointless arguments that rely on two opposing facts. This idea was mostly prompted by the holocaust denial/racist crowd, a group that tends to get into "fact-vs.-fact" wars.

So, um, yeah, feedback and a yes/no decision would be welcome.

 

[niftydrifty]

I think that this is the wrong way to look at it. Sources should never be dismissed. Sources should never even be acknowledged. Is the information true or false? If you disagree, explain why.

 

[Schweddy]

Very good idea. We had started on one in the past, but for some reason it was dropped.

Some folks might believe Wikipedia is partisan; others might believe FoxNews is. How do we allow only top notch sources without some type of bias from any of us?

 

[Thelost1]

@niftydrifty:
You miss the point. Without acknowledging sources you could make any sort of claim you desired. Facts cannot and should not be debated.

 

[Thelost1]

oh, sorry Vauge, missed your post.

I would say that asking the mod team to preside over this would work very well. They seem quite unbiased overall.

and I would say that this is only for recorded sources like books and websites. Fox News would not work becase only people who were viewing Fox when the statement was made could have access to the fact.

 

[Schweddy]

What is a fact and how can it stand on merit if it cannot be proven? (serious question)

 

[Thelost1]

I don't understand your question.

Based off of my limited understanding I would say that a fact is a anything lacking in opinion that can be proven true or untrue.

Meaning:
"Hitler caused the death of many people" is a fact as recognized by the vast majority of humanity.
"Hitler was evil" is not a fact, however true I may find it, as it contains an opinion.

 

[Schweddy]

The issue is that there is a fine line between fact and opinion. Plus that fact might be determined by bias and interpetation.

Example:
Fact or opinion?

Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Thelost1]

Well, running with a book that is probably rooted in some history, jesus' death on the cross is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Isn't all of science like that though? There is no way to witness the evolution of humanty, but due to overwelming evidence it is accepted as true.

 

[1069]

I think I'd prefer to assess the relative merits and evaluate the credibility of a given source for myself, rather than have the moderators do it for me.
Half the fun of debate is discrediting your opponent's sources (if in fact they aren't credible).
"Mainstream" does not automatically equal credible, although it does weigh in favor of credibility.
And "alternative" does not automatically discredit a source, although admittedly many alternative news sources lack credibility.
But I think discerning these things for ourselves is a good learning experience.

Anyway, that's my :twocents: .

 

[Thelost1]

ok. just a suggestion.

 

[1069]

ok. just a suggestion.

Well, don't let me rain on your parade.
It was just an opinion.
If everybody else wants the mods to edit sources, it's fine with me.
Mine are beyond reproach. :angel?:

Maybe we should vote on it?

 

[Thelost1]

what do you mean by "edit sources"?

I was just proposing a list of sources that have been deemed trustworthy or otherwise.

 

[1069]

what do you mean by "edit sources"?

I was just proposing a list of sources that have been deemed trustworthy or otherwise.

Oh, I see.
So people could choose to refer to this list or not; it would be like a reference.
Well, that might be a useful resource, especially for those who are relatively new to the political scene.
It just seems like the list of "credible" sources would be more or less endless, while the list of non-credible sources would also, potentially, be... endless.

What would the criteria be?

 

[Thelost1]

for a site:
1.General credibility(lack of known errors or lies)
2.peer-reviewedness
3.non-radicalism

against a site:
1.Extreme partisanship
2.known lies or errors
3.outdatedness

 

[1069]

for a site:
1.General credibility(lack of known errors or lies)
2.peer-reviewedness
3.non-radicalism

against a site:
1.Extreme partisanship
2.known lies or errors
3.outdatedness

That sounds pretty good.
I wonder if anyone will be able to reach a consensus, however, on what constitutes "radicalism" or "extreme partisanship", both fairly relative terms.

Maybe we can start by putting Stormfront on the "non-credible" list.

 

[Thelost1]

I was thinking that the mods could do that.

grrr, Stormfront.

 

[Schweddy]

I was thinking that the mods could do that.

grrr, Stormfront.

Sorry I bailed mid topic on you guys - not feeling great.

The mods are here to to moderate the content of posts for breaking rules, not the quality or lack of. Telling a user what source to use can be very biased.

I would not mind and sign in very much on a community effort to create a list. We could go as far as creating a system to allow for voting and members addition.

 

[Gardener]

I believe that this would benefit the Debate Politics forum because it would tone down pointless arguments that rely on two opposing facts. This idea was mostly prompted by the holocaust denial/racist crowd, a group that tends to get into "fact-vs.-fact" wars.

.

You nailed it.

I had one of these things harrassing me to to provide a source for a statement I made regarding Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Anybody with a triple digit I.Q. can google up the words "Jewish" "Refugees" "Arab" "Lands" and find countless articles on the subject. It is a known fact that once thriving Jewish communities no longer exist in Arab lands due to persecution.

As to the antisemites infesting this board, I might point out that these are by no means limited to the stormfront, uber right types, as the uber left is often times just as antisemitic as the uber right. Referencing hatesites like "internet intifada", ism type sites, counterpunch and other places favored by antisemitic leftists is just as compromized from the standpoint of neutrality as Stormfront and other white power type sites.

 

[niftydrifty]

You miss the point. Without acknowledging sources you could make any sort of claim you desired.

hi Thelost1, no, I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't 'marry' sources to the claims. For example, what if the list of uncredible sources contained newsmax, or Michael Moore, or whomever? But what if what newsmax reported one day was true? I'd like to know how it was true. Knowing precisely how or why it is true would be helpful. I think that it wouldn't be helpful, say, that debatepolitics has an official position on the credibility of newsmax.

My point is, isn't it more important to figure out what in our world is true or false, than it is to be labelling sources as either credible or not?

What I meant by "acknowledging sources" is that I think it is a mistake to focus on the messenger, rather than to focus on the actual content of the message. It's akin to an ad hominem argument, and it is illogical.

Facts cannot and should not be debated.

Come again? If you are indeed concerned about anyone making any claim they desire, you should be aware that you're well on your way to doing just that. All one will have to do is choose a "credible source." Never mind the content of the facts, or whether or not they are true.

I really couldn't disagree more with this idea.

 

[Schweddy]

hi Thelost1, no, I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't 'marry' sources to the claims. For example, what if the list of uncredible sources contained newsmax, or Michael Moore, or whomever? But what if what newsmax reported one day was true? I'd like to know how it was true. Knowing precisely how or why it is true would be helpful. I think that it wouldn't be helpful, say, that debatepolitics has an official position on the credibility of newsmax.

What are your thoughts on the community rating a source as a whole?

For instance, say we list a group of sites. Everyone interested votes on the source for bias. The votes median add up to the bias credibility opinion of everone that participated. Nothing official, but it might be interesting to prove a general consensous. Plus, it could become a vialable source list for folks that wish to look for specifics beyond the google engine as well.

Members would be able to add and vote on sources. We would also have personal webite links as well for donators.

I'm looking at a link system that costs $35. Don't want to purchase unless there is enough interest as our funds are running a low ATM.

 

[niftydrifty]

What are your thoughts on the community rating a source as a whole?

This is just my opinion of course, but I think that rating sources is a pointless exercise. I'd rather debate facts. But given the other responses in this thread, it feels to me as if I might be the minority here.

Others are saying that they feel as if "fact vs fact" debates are frustrating or pointless. But I feel that they are useful and interesting. The debate might be a stalemate or whatever, and let's be honest, which one isn't? but to those of us reading, it's a good way to learn from reading a "fact vs fact" discussion. I feel it wouldn't be that enlightening to read thru a thread that involved any "un unh, unfair, you used that source" kind of a discussion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'd rather talk about why something specific anyone says is true or false, rather than why we should dismiss every article in the New York Times because of Jason Blair, or what-have-you.

 

[Schweddy]

This is just my opinion of course, but I think that rating sources is a pointless exercise. I'd rather debate facts. But given the other responses in this thread, it feels to me as if I might be the minority here.

Others are saying that they feel as if "fact vs fact" debates are frustrating or pointless. But I feel that they are useful and interesting. The debate might be a stalemate or whatever, and let's be honest, which one isn't? but to those of us reading, it's a good way to learn from reading a "fact vs fact" discussion. I feel it wouldn't be that enlightening to read thru a thread that involved any "un unh, unfair, you used that source" kind of a discussion.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I'd rather talk about why something specific anyone says is true or false, rather than why we should dismiss every article in the New York Times because of Jason Blair, or what-have-you.

I think we agree on what a "fact" is. My guess is that you saw where I was heading on the example of fact/opinion above.

My thoughts about a link system with bias rating is to see what everyone thinks of the sources. I would find it interesting what folks think of some sites that claim to have no bias. Or ones that the mainstream may think is another. You're right, unsure it would *prove* anything. Might be a fun experiement. Plus, it could be a way to gather additional resources. On the other hand, we need more folks with interest before we commit to that type of project.

IMO, some of the best debators never discount sources primarily because they are from Stormfront, Foxnews or CNN.

 

[Tashah]

IMO, some of the best debators never discount sources primarily because they are from Stormfront, Foxnews or CNN.

Stormfront is not a news/reporting bureau. It is a large website with a white-supremicist ideological and political agenda. Their modus operandi is to tell snippets of truth, but almost always taken out of context and accompanied with half-truths and editorial content that is extremely slanted. What you wind up with is an article that is 1% truth and 99% garbage. If the visitor is not well educated in the topic, the article appears to be entirely truthful and genuine. Counterpunch operates much the same but with a different agenda.

 

[Schweddy]

Stormfront is not a news/reporting bureau. It is a large website with a white-supremicist ideological and political agenda. Their modus operandi is to tell snippets of truth, but almost always taken out of context and accompanied with half-truths and editorial content that is extremely slanted. What you wind up with is an article that is 1% truth and 99% garbage. If the visitor is not well educated in the topic, the article appears to be entirely truthful and genuine. Counterpunch operates much the same but with a different agenda.

Gotta be honest - not that familiar with Stormfront.

But I am saying that if the entire and only reason to discount is because of the source, then that could burden could be on you as well as the author of the posting source. If Stormfront can prove their source - even that 1% can be credible.