Sources

[Thelost1]

Perhaps the list would not be just "good sites" and "bad sites" but rather a list of sources with snippits about the source.
for example:

1.Stormfront.org: This source has a racist agenda and any evidence obtained from this site should be subjected to extreme scrutiny.
2.Wikipedia.org: In general, Wikipedia is unbiased. It would be a good idea, however, to cross-referance any questionable-seeming information.

 

[Thelost1]

on the topic of debating facts:

You seem to have misunderstood me niftydrifty, I believe that facts should not be debated on an internet forum. I mean, how many of the people who deny the holocaust posess evidence that would stand up in a university or similar environ?

 

[Schweddy]

Perhaps the list would not be just "good sites" and "bad sites" but rather a list of sources with snippits about the source.
for example:

1.Stormfront.org: This source has a racist agenda and any evidence obtained from this site should be subjected to extreme scrutiny.
2.Wikipedia.org: In general, Wikipedia is unbiased. It would be a good idea, however, to cross-referance any questionable-seeming information.

Yes, we could give reviews and comments for each source.
That might be a better idea than rating bias.

 

[Thelost1]

so, what does everyone think of this latest idea?

 

[Schweddy]

Re: Tips for debate (Add your own!)

I broke down and asked wife for an early Christmas present.

It will be up shortly.

 

[Schweddy]

Re: Tips for debate (Add your own!)

OK, it's up under Resources.

Temporarily, everyone can add links - lets see this thing get populated.

When adding a link, it pulls the information from the site itself.
That could detour "biased" additions.

Also, I added "political leading" selection to a few of the categories.

 

[Justagurl]

The world isn't black and white and if this forum turns into a debate over sources, I'll have no part of it.

 

[Thelost1]

clearly you failed to read my last suggestion, Justagurl.

 

[Justagurl]

clearly you failed to read my last suggestion, Justagurl.

I saw your suggestion but I'm still concerned. If the source ratings constantly find their way into our debates it could get ugly. Particularly, if it erupts into a partisan issue.

And for the most part, it's not needed. Most of us verify eye-popping news stories with web searches.

 

[Volker]

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.

Ok, I wrote it before, but it went lost while the server was down. There was a simple question to Gardener if he can back up his absurd assertion. He was unable or unwilling to so. This did not change when I asked him here again.

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.

This is another absurd assertion.

 

[Volker]

I consider SourceWatch to be a useful site to check sources.

 

[Gardener]

Ok, I wrote it before, but it went lost while the server was down. There was a simple question to Gardener if he can back up his absurd assertion. He was unable or unwilling to so. This did not change when I asked him here again.

This is another absurd assertion.

The suggestion for people to google the information themselves was intended for humans.

 

[Volker]

The suggestion for people to google the information themselves was intended for humans.

I was thinking it was intended for humans. This is kinda trivial information, because google searches is what humans do exclusively, maybe except for someone who believes in something like aliens are amongst us :roll:

 

[Gardener]

I was thinking it was intended for humans.

Thank you for explaining why you have not availed yourself to the hundreds upon hundreds of sources confirming my statement.

 

[Volker]

Gardener, if you want to tell me now that aliens are amongst us and I should google for it or something like that, please do so in another thread.

 

[Volker]

Thank you for explaining why you have not availed yourself to the hundreds upon hundreds of sources confirming my statement.

You did not provide one single source, you sure did not offer hundreds of hundreds of sources. You divert this thread, you evade the issue, if it is so easy, why don't you give one single source?

You can start a thread about it at a more appropriate board.

 

[Gardener]

Gardener, if you want to tell me now that aliens are amongst us and I should google for it or something like that, please do so in another thread.

You are very tedious. My original statement is truthful.

Any human can google up the words I suggested to see that I am telling the truth while you are indulging in lies in order to further your hateful agenda.

THis site SAYS that it does not allow hate speech, yet here you are day after day lying in order to promote hatred. If Vauge googles up the words I suggested, he would know you are lying and that the reason you are lying is in order to act as a propagandist for the express purpose of damaging Jewish people. If this isn't hate, I don't know what is.

 

[Volker]

You are very tedious. My original statement is truthful.

It sounds absurd, but if you think it is truthful, why don't you try to back it up?

Any human can google up the words I suggested to see that I am telling the truth while you are indulging in lies in order to further your hateful agenda.

You invent things about an agenda, but you don't give a single source to back your absurd assertion. Is it because you invented this, too?

THis site SAYS that it does not allow hate speech, yet here you are day after day lying in order to promote hatred. If Vauge googles up the words I suggested, he would know you are lying and that the reason you are lying is in order to act as a propagandist for the express purpose of damaging Jewish people.

You won't give a source, right?

All you want to do is to divert this thread longer.

If this isn't hate, I don't know what is.

I'm pretty sure, you know, what hate is. Asking to give a source is not hate.

 

[Gardener]

All you want to do is to divert this thread longer.

.

Since this thread is all about things such as yourself, and the extent to which these things go to advance their sick agenda, then I am diverting nothing.

I have provided search words by which any human can see for themselves the veracity of my statement. I suggest people google for themselves because then they can decide for themselves. Sure, there are always going to be things that slither into forums with a racist agenda using prevarication as the vehicle for spreading their filth, but these things are exposed for what they are by the lies they tell and the truths they deny.

I honestly do not understand why this forum welcomes these things, but it is not my forum, now, is it?

 

[Volker]

Since this thread is all about things such as yourself, and the extent to which these things go to advance their sick agenda, then I am diverting nothing.

You still are unable or unwilling to provide a source. You still try to divert this thread.

I have provided search words by which any human can see for themselves the veracity of my statement. I suggest people google for themselves because then they can decide for themselves. Sure, there are always going to be things that slither into forums with a racist agenda using prevarication as the vehicle for spreading their filth, but these things are exposed for what they are by the lies they tell and the truths they deny.

Obviously your sources don't seem to show up in Google and your immature twaddle here does not change it.

I honestly do not understand why this forum welcomes these things, but it is not my forum, now, is it?

No, it's not your forum. You are a moderator on another forum. You could try to make the forum better, where you are a moderator at. This would be bitter needful there.

You seem to rather waste your time trying to divert a suggestion thread here.

 

[RightinNYC]

Moderator's Warning:

Enough is enough. No more of this, please. Stop. Oy.

 

[Billo_Really]

A "fact", is nothing more than an agreement between two people.

You always consider a source to a point, but you never draw you conclusion soley on the source of an assertion. What nifty said is correct. One must weigh whether the assertion being made is true or false? Correct or incorrect? Accurate or inaccurate? Close or not even? To judge a post soley on the source is an ad hom. Which posters like to do when they have a weak argument (or not one at all).

How about a "fact sheet" listing a few logic tips for quick reference:

• Basic 12 logical fallacies.
• Definitions (ie., of deductive and inductive reasoning).
• Basic mechanics of a rebuttal
• Debating tips (could be in form of user suggestions that have worked in the past)
• Do's and Don'ts of making a claim

Something concise that would be user friendly to the poster wanting to quickly check to see if their not making any "material" errors in a debate.

And it could also give examples of qualified sources in certain areas that have been debated in the past.

Maybe a feature called "In the Know" where the mod team will analyze a random source (or one requested by a member) in their mod group and come up with a concensus they could post for the members as to what their official position would be on the credibility factor of the particular source.

Example:
I like to use Azzaman in English for my source to show the state of things in Iraq. My position is to find out what's happening there, what better source than to ask an Iraqi living there. The horses mouth so to speak. Trajan's argument on Azzaman is they are a Kuwaiti based media outlet that issues more propaganda than facts. Maybe the mod team could discuss this in detail and post a number between 1 and 10 as to the credibility factor of this particular source.

Just a thought.

 

[Schweddy]

You soooo had me until the DP/mods offical position on sources paragraph.

If you want to put together a 'fact sheet' we can sticky and reference it.

I agree with you 100% on your definition of a fact. (OMG, did I just say that?)
:rofl:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Vauge:
You soooo had me until the DP/mods offical position on sources paragraph.

I don't think that's what I meant. It was more of a concensous view from the "marketplace of ideas" if they were to apply a factor of credibility to a source...

Thinking about this a little more...

You're right. Sometimes less is more.

 

[niftydrifty]

You seem to have misunderstood me niftydrifty, I believe that facts should not be debated on an internet forum.

I understand you perfectly. I believe that facts can be debated on an internet forum, you think they should not be.

I mean, how many of the people who deny the holocaust posess evidence that would stand up in a university or similar environ?

Likely none of them. so it will be simple to refute them, eh?

so, what does everyone think of this latest idea?

I think it's crazy.

The world isn't black and white and if this forum turns into a debate over sources, I'll have no part of it.

Amen.