NSG Sourcing?

[Bendira]

So ive seen so many different expectations of what can be considered a reliable source by the "NSG community". Often times, I grow frustrated with people that constantly ask for sources that meet their strict interpretation of what a reliable source is.

Personally, I have seen the "Source?" statement abused many times on the forums. For instance, I have linked a blog as a source that an event happened. People say "blogs are not reliable sources". The video on the blog however clearly shows the event occuring. I have had people say that my youtube videos ive used as sources are not reliable, since the videos could be faked (wtf?). Obviously some people say wikipedia is not a reliable source. Some people go so far as to say that you need to find a specific paragraph you are referencing in a thousand some odd page document in order to use it as a source. Certain media/news outlets are considered "biased".

In the end, practically nothing is a reliable source. And when people get backed into a corner, they usually will just challenge the credibility of your source. This often leads to sidetracking of debates, into seperate debates about what constitutes a reasonable source.

So my opinion: This is an internet forum, and as a result sourcing should not be held to draconian standards. Challenging a video of something that actually happened based solely on the fact that its from youtube is ridiculous.

So what do you guys think?

[Hydesland]

Youtube is often a rubbish source, it is far too easy to take things completely out of context, and it is far too easy to use editing tricks to paint a totally fabricated story.

[Bendira]

Youtube is often a rubbish source, it is far too easy to take things completely out of context, and it is far too easy to use editing tricks to paint a totally fabricated story.

The majority of videos I personally have used are typically raw video of certain events occuring. Most aren't even edited at all.

[Hornopolis]

Youtube as a source means you're desperate.

[Pivovarsky]

Youtube is often a rubbish source, it is far too easy to take things completely out of context, and it is far too easy to use editing tricks to paint a totally fabricated story.

The majority of videos I personally have used are typically raw video of certain events occuring. Most aren't even edited at all.

That might be what you want us to think. You could easily point the camera into a clear sky, cut and then point at something else later without anyone noticing the difference. I like my sources from legitimate news sites.

[Pivovarsky]

Youtube as a source means you're desperate.

^This

[Bendira]

The majority of videos I personally have used are typically raw video of certain events occuring. Most aren't even edited at all.

That might be what you want us to think. You could easily point the camera into a clear sky, cut and then point at something else later without anyone noticing the difference. I like my sources from legitimate news sites.

I typically don't link magic tricks as sources where such stringent continuity would be required.

[Pivovarsky]

That might be what you want us to think. You could easily point the camera into a clear sky, cut and then point at something else later without anyone noticing the difference. I like my sources from legitimate news sites.

I typically don't link magic tricks as sources where such stringent continuity would be required.

And that could be just you trying to cover yourself. On Youtube, anything's possible because anyone with some good editing software can completely fabricate a story.

[Lauchlin]

Youtube as a source means you're desperate.

Bullshit.

There is a very wide range in quality of videos hosted on youtube. Many of them are, in fact, reliable sources. If someone is trying to provide evidence that an event occurred, a BBC News or CNN report on the event, hosted on youtube, are sufficient evidence.

[Hornopolis]

Youtube as a source means you're desperate.

Bullshit.

There is a very wide range in quality of videos hosted on youtube. Many of them are, in fact, reliable sources. If someone is trying to provide evidence that an event occurred, a BBC News or CNN report on the event, hosted on youtube, are sufficient evidence.

Source?

[Pivovarsky]

Youtube as a source means you're desperate.

Bullshit.

There is a very wide range in quality of videos hosted on youtube. Many of them are, in fact, reliable sources. If someone is trying to provide evidence that an event occurred, a BBC News or CNN report on the event, hosted on youtube, are sufficient evidence.

The exception would be if a news organization's channel posted it. http://www.youtube.com/cnn is perfectly acceptable, but if its "XreconzSniper" or "JezuzFreak019", the info is questionable.

[The Norwegian Blue]

It depends very much on the Youtube video and what you're attempting to prove with it. If it's a video of Joe Randomdude jumping up and down, and you're solely trying to prove that Joe Randomdude has jumped up and down at some point in his life, then sure, I'll accept that as a valid source. Similarly, I will totally accept a blog post about eating Cheez Whiz as proof that someone once wrote a blog post about eating Cheez Whiz. The problem comes when people try to pretend that blog posts and Youtube videos are actually reliable for anything beyond that. There is no oversight for blogs and Youtube videos, no fact-checkers, no editors, no pressure to retract inaccurate information. People can lie about, distort, and completely fabricate events to their hearts' content. That is, pretty much by definition, not a reliable source.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm outsourcing my sourcing. Hundreds of five year old Chinese children are imprisoned in a cramped computer lab hammering at a keyboard 24/7 trying to find evidence for the stuff I come up with, all for a combined wage of less than twenty cents a day.

[Bendira]

Bullshit.

There is a very wide range in quality of videos hosted on youtube. Many of them are, in fact, reliable sources. If someone is trying to provide evidence that an event occurred, a BBC News or CNN report on the event, hosted on youtube, are sufficient evidence.

The exception would be if a news organization's channel posted it. http://www.youtube.com/cnn is perfectly acceptable, but if its "XreconzSniper" or "JezuzFreak019", the info is questionable.

If you say "This video shows the cop punching the girl in the face", and in the video, a police officer punches a girl in the face, hows that not a reliable source? No matter who posted it? Unless they set up a green screen and hired 20 extra's to be in the background?

[United Dependencies]

The exception would be if a news organization's channel posted it. http://www.youtube.com/cnn is perfectly acceptable, but if its "XreconzSniper" or "JezuzFreak019", the info is questionable.

If you say "This video shows the cop punching the girl in the face", and in the video, a police officer punches a girl in the face, hows that not a reliable source? No matter who posted it? Unless they set up a green screen and hired 20 extra's to be in the background?

The video could be taking the act out of context.

[Pivovarsky]

If you say "This video shows the cop punching the girl in the face", and in the video, a police officer punches a girl in the face, hows that not a reliable source? No matter who posted it? Unless they set up a green screen and hired 20 extra's to be in the background?

The video could be taking the act out of context.

Indeed. The video could've been cut to make it seem like the girl had not been wielding a knife, or something of the sort.

For the purpose of saying a cop punched the girl in the face, its pretty much definitive but whether it was right or wrong is a different matter.

[Jagalonia]

Pfft, I am my own source....

[Pivovarsky]

Pfft, I am my own source....

1000th Post: You have some balls

[Lauchlin]

The video could be taking the act out of context.

Indeed. The video could've been cut to make it seem like the girl had not been wielding a knife, or something of the sort.

For the purpose of saying a cop punched the girl in the face, its pretty much definitive but whether it was right or wrong is a different matter.

What if it's a 10 minute video that provides ten minutes of context on either side of the event?

Saying that "youtube videos are not valid sources" as a blanket statement is wrong.

[Jagalonia]

Pfft, I am my own source....

1000th Post: You have some balls

Nah, mostly out of laziness.

[Pivovarsky]

Indeed. The video could've been cut to make it seem like the girl had not been wielding a knife, or something of the sort.

For the purpose of saying a cop punched the girl in the face, its pretty much definitive but whether it was right or wrong is a different matter.

What if it's a 10 minute video that provides ten minutes of context on either side of the event?

Saying that "youtube videos are not valid sources" as a blanket statement is wrong.

Well, as with any source, it depends on the situation, the poster, biases, additional sources, factual charges, claims, etc. etc. etc.

A lot of people do not take wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit or post on it. Youtube is pretty much the same thing through a different medium

[Lauchlin]

A lot of people do not take wikipedia as a source because anyone can edit or post on it.

Those people are also foolish. A good Wikipedia article is not only useful as a summary for a given topic, but it will provide a variety of actual sources which interested parties can then use to follow up the argument.

A Wikipedia snippet with no sources is not, itself, a good source. A comprehensive Wikipedia article with copious references and external links to back up what is being said in the article is a good source, as far as discussing ideas on the Internet goes.

[Quailtopia]

The exception would be if a news organization's channel posted it. http://www.youtube.com/cnn is perfectly acceptable, but if its "XreconzSniper" or "JezuzFreak019", the info is questionable.

^This. When people are usually clamoring for a source, its not because you're making an offhand remark. Its because someone is claiming that the top tax bracket in the US is 40% and all of your income gets taxed on that level. In other words, we are asking for a source for a wildly inaccurate claim.

We aren't asking for a source on the price of ice cream in Dallas. If it is important enough, you probably won't have to link to no-name youtube accounts, because it will be covered in news sources.

Also in the same vein, blogs are not inherently good OR bad sources. But it is very rare that they turn out to be good sources. They're in the magical grey zone, along with infowars, the Heritage Foundation, MIM, and MSH.

EDIT: also Pivovarsky, feel free to add me to your list of people who agree with me :3

[Sailsia]

Pfft, I am my own source....

1000th Post: You have some balls

congrats.

[Pivovarsky]

^This. When people are usually clamoring for a source, its not because you're making an offhand remark. Its because someone is claiming that the top tax bracket in the US is 40% and all of your income gets taxed on that level. In other words, we are asking for a source for a wildly inaccurate claim.

We aren't asking for a source on the price of ice cream in Dallas. If it is important enough, you probably won't have to link to no-name youtube accounts, because it will be covered in news sources.

Also in the same vein, blogs are not inherently good OR bad sources. But it is very rare that they turn out to be good sources. They're in the magical grey zone, along with infowars, the Heritage Foundation, MIM, and MSH.

EDIT: also Pivovarsky, feel free to add me to your list of people who agree with me :3

Will do. Unfortunately, lotsa those likes were from threads made during April Fools Day meaning they were all taken down because of that Liberal/Conservative thing :/

And also, I've seen several conflicting opinions on such topics like taxes. Some people are taxes more than others, and a lotta people will under/overestimate the tax bracket for everyone else depending on their own tax level and what they think the rest of the country is like.

Other things of this nature include whether most of the nation is pro-gay or pro-religion, Liberal or Conservative, etc. An Atheist could say that there are a shitload of Atheists in the world, including Atheists, Agnostics and Buddhists, although that is not true.