What is a "reliable source"?

[isaiah8]

I have been fascinated by the number, variety and (dare I say) questionable aspects of the "sources" of information people have been using to propagate conspiracy theories online.

How do you define the term "reliable source"?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by isaiah8

How do you define the term "reliable source"?

Backed by facts and evidence.

This thread can be closed now.

[isaiah8]

Perhaps I should clarify. Is a YouTube video a "reliable source"? Is Wikipedia a "reliable source"? Is CNN a "reliable source"?

See, I go to YouTube to watch guitar lessons and to show my kids old reruns of The Muppet Show. In my mind, that is all it's good for. So, why do so many people pass around YouTube videos as "reliable sources"?

Verifiability is not something I think one can find at YouTube.

EDIT -- Okay, I'm wondering if any single member here believes there is such a thing as an "historical fact". I admit, after just a few short weeks of listening to people online about conspiracy theories (on both sides) I am really starting to get concerned by how much the world has changed in the 22 years since I was in high school............when people actually recognized the existence of "historical fact". I don't think anyone accepts that kind of information anymore. I hope I am wrong.

[Arus808]

YouTube is not a reliable source.
Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, by the very nature of the system
CNN can be a reliable source, as their is checks in place, so that when a story airs, it is backed by some research, and/or evidence/facts. But, what they reports should be supported by other outlets of the same.

If CNN is the only one reporting that a chicken crossed the road, while MSNBC, FOX News, and several newspapers, report that it was actually a Black duck that crossed the road, and they provide evidence via a photograph taken by a witness, then CNN woulld be in the wrong.

[isaiah8]

Arus808,

I agree. So, not everyone has totally lost it, I see. Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity. I mean that. I just hope the journalism professors are teaching tomorrow's media about the means of accuracy.

[GreNME]

Actually, a source can be reliable coming from Wikipedia or Youtube, but only reliable within limitations. Most sources are like that.

You see, it all depends on the depths to which the person citing is referencing the source, and the number of concurrent sources are also used in order to back the reference up. For example, using the chicken-road analogy, you might very well come across a Wikipedia article explaining that the chicken crossed the road, but to take that as definitive regarding the actions of the chicken is speculative at best (hearsay at worst). However, if the Wiki aricle has in its references a link to a YouTube video that recorded the chicken crossing the road, then the article gains credibility as containing at least a certain amount of other sources backing it up.

However, if we find out through a news reporter that the video of the Chicken crossing the road was "photoshopped" by someone taking footage of a chicken walking and footage of a road, then the credibility that was gained in the Wiki article is lost and it would require further burden of proof to have any credence as a source. Other news articles containing eyewitness accounts of the Chicken crossing the road would be helpful, but once again are not definitive because of the inherent problem of reliability in eyewitness testimony (something trial lawyers learn about). At this point the Wiki article would have gained more credibility than without any supporting evidence, but would not have gained as much as it had with an accompanying video for the evidence.

If, at a later date, some chicken droppings were found on the other side of the road and reported on that might help the Wiki article more, but would still not be definitive as far as holding a factual account of what may have happened. Further, if the Turkey holds a press conference announcing that the Chicken spent the evening with him and could not have crossed the road, then once again the accuracy is called into even more doubt.

In the end, the Wiki article may not be reliable as to the evidence to whether the Chicken crossed the road or not, but it could be useful in showcasing the fallibility of the YouTube video and could also be helpful in laying out a clear case of "what we know" even if there is no definitive answer to whether the Chicken actually crossed or not. As long as the Wiki article is being forthright with the "what we know" information and doesn't make any assumptions (but leaves the references for the reader to follow), then the Wiki article could at the very least be considered an honest source, though not a definitive one.

That also happens to be how I tend to consider such sources and how much I weigh them for relevance. If they can stick to data that can be checked by others and avoid insinuations that are not backed up by other sources, then the source is useful in an informational sense but not in a definitive sense. The same goes for books, magazines, television, radio, and other media. That's the due process that is necessary to follow through on sourcing to ensure that not only are the reference citations formatted properly, but that the citation was used in a contextually meaningful manner in the first place. Otherwise the person using citations would simply be dropping names or links or random information in the attempt to tie numerous unrelated data together.

The problem with most conspiracy theory is that it attempts to drop different, seemingly unrelated data together in a manner that ignores (or removes) context with the purpose of creating a new context based on its own predetermined conclusion. It's similar to newsroom spin, but usually less focused and more dogmatic.

[isaiah8]

Thanks GreNME,

Okay, I have actually seen instances of deception online similar to what you describe in your last paragraph. However, I wonder if it is always intentional as you imply.

"Reliability" in the sense of what one person deems it to be subjectively has to do with the level of trust he personally has in the person/entity providing the information. Example: Yesterday, I was playing softball with my children. My son was pitching to me. My 9-yr-old daughter was playing outfield. As my son prepared to pitch, my 9-yr-old looked at the sky in amazement, pointed upward toward the sky and said, "Look! A dog!" Now, why on earth would a 9-yr-old do that? She was totally sincere in her statement. She had no reason to lie. She wasn't prone to trying to distract me from hitting the ball. So, there *had* to be a dog in the sky, right? Well, common sense told me that the likelihood of her seeing an actual dog in the sky was remote, at best. I managed to hit the ball before asking her what she was talking about. She explained that she had seen a cloud shaped like a dog.

I ask myself what it was that made me refuse to completely accept that there was a dog in the sky despite the fact that my daughter was, to me, a totally reliable and innocent source. The answer is that I tend to take things with a grain of salt as a matter of my individual nature. There was also the matter of the likelihood of her seeing an actual dog in the sky.

I wonder what things would have to appear in my personality to have made me believe that there was a literal dog in the sky. I believe that I would have to have within me some pre-existing notion about "dogs" or "the sky" or both in order to have believed she had seen a dog in the sky. Her notion would have fed into mine. Her reliability as a source would then have been magnified a thousand-fold in my subjective opinion.

I have a theory myself and that is that conspiracy theorists have pre-existing notions that make it easier for them to believe things that most people are not willing to accept and that these pre-existing notions can be sinister in nature (a motive to protect an investment in the sale of conspiracy DVDs) or not sinister in nature (a general lack of trust in "the establishment") or a mixture of the two.

Isaiah8

[defaultdotxbe]

youtube and wikipedia arent automatically unreliable sources, but both should be treated as encyclopedic sources

for example, you can watch a CNN broadcast that has been uploaded to youtube, the video can then rest on CNN's credibility and the the fact that it is on youtube is meaningless

same goes for wikipedia, at the end of the article should always be a list of sources used in that article, use THOSE as your sources rather than the wiki article itself (in fact wiki is usually the first place i go when i want information, because it has such a nice collect in one place)

but as always, with any source, check where the information is ACTUALLY coming from, this goes for CNN and other news outlets too, but double for other internet sources

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by isaiah8

Thanks GreNME,

Okay, I have actually seen instances of deception online similar to what you describe in your last paragraph. However, I wonder if it is always intentional as you imply.

Of course it's intentional, it just often isn't malevolent. The context they are couching it in is their own POV-laden context, whether it's a conspiracy theory, an op-ed piece in the New Yorker, or an episode of talk radio. Most posts here have the same quality. I'm not trying to imply that it's a bad thing-- I've hopefully illustrated otherwise in my previous post.

Originally Posted by isaiah8

"Reliability" in the sense of what one person deems it to be subjectively has to do with the level of trust he personally has in the person/entity providing the information.

As long as it's acknowledged that the credibility being given is subjective that's fine. However when getting down to nitty-gritty facts-- for example whether Chicken really did cross the road-- the need for outside verification for objectivity becomes increasingly important.

Originally Posted by isaiah8

I wonder what things would have to appear in my personality to have made me believe that there was a literal dog in the sky. I believe that I would have to have within me some pre-existing notion about "dogs" or "the sky" or both in order to have believed she had seen a dog in the sky. Her notion would have fed into mine. Her reliability as a source would then have been magnified a thousand-fold in my subjective opinion.

I have a theory myself and that is that conspiracy theorists have pre-existing notions that make it easier for them to believe things that most people are not willing to accept and that these pre-existing notions can be sinister in nature (a motive to protect an investment in the sale of conspiracy DVDs) or not sinister in nature (a general lack of trust in "the establishment") or a mixture of the two.

People are normally predisposed to being at least cautious, if not quite skeptical. A lot of conspiracy theories play on this predisposition, focusing the skepticism in a manner that the person believing begins to share the POV of the ones sharing the CT. Add to that caution some good, old-fashioned adolescent gravitas (remember how everything was life-critical as an adolescent?) and you wind up with a great number of the more prevalent conspiracy theories out there. Heck, you even have a few political commentators' regular spiel as well.

[zaphod2016]

This is an excellent question, and I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I'm not sure there is any such thing as a 100% reliable source. For example, major news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC often mix editorial and opinion with hard news. The New York Times had a writer a few years back who was caught making-up stories. Internet media (blogs, YouTube, Wiki, etc) vary in quality drastically, from excellent to exceptionally poor.

I would also like to defend YouTube. There is a LOT of junk on YouTube, however, I have also seen excellent material there, such as PBS NOVA specials. I assume we will agree that a credible program does not lose any status virtue of a transfer to YouTube. In other words, it depends on the content, not the medium. Just because its on YouTube doesn't make it wrong; just because it was published in the New York Times doesn't make it right.

[Architect]

The trouble is that those who are most in need of reliable sources are often most unable to identify same.....