What do you count as a reliable source?

[Femphile_xoxo]

Do you corroborate information that you learn from news sources? When debating with someone do you make sure that the studies you're quoting are peer-reviewed? Are you someone who thinks that social media (YouTube included) is a reliable source of information?

When asked to provide sources on an earlier post, I did exactly that. All but two of my sources were peer-reviewed studies, and yet they weren't deemed good enough. Despite the fact that the person I was debating with sent Huffington Post articles and YouTube videos for statistics.
I believe that for stories, corroborating information is best. But for statistics, you should be providing the actual study rather than an article summarizing and manipulating the "study".

What do you think?

Updates

+1 y

Yes, folks, peer-reviewed studies are indeed, not always reliable. Not the point of this question but please, do focus just solely on that 🤦

[HighValue]

Sometimes "peer reviewed" or similar are not reliable depending on where their funding comes from.
A live streamed YouTube video showing events unfolding is a reliable source, especially when there are multiple people live streaming the same event from different angles so you can see what is actually happening.

Large news agencies have been proven over and over to be intentionally dishonest and edit their content to fit a political agenda. (Keith Oberman, Rachael Maddow, Glenn Beck, etc.)

Also, when I have seen something myself IRL and a "source" disputes it, I know they are unreliable because I have personally witnessed the truth. For example, some news agencies claiming that the high gas and food prices is due to Russia and Ukraine's war, when I have receipts from 10 months prior to that where gas prices had already risen by 100% from Biden's executive orders. That means ABC and NBC news are intentionally lying about that. At the same gas stations where I have been going for years, it was $2.40 per gallon for premium when Trump left, and after a couple months of Biden (and his executive order) it rose to $4.80 per gallon. Then it continued to rise after that long before the Russia and Ukraine war. Same for food and other products.

[Anonymous]

In theory I agree with you, but this is a social media website, not a place for scholarly debate. Most of the users here can’t even write a complete sentence. The significance of one source over another is lost on them. You’re only wasting your time with citations.

Do I corroborate information? Yes. But more than that, I actually read articles and studies instead of taking at face value whatever click bait politically motivated titles or tag lines they may have. 9 times out of 10 the two don’t match and you’re instead reading some exaggerated bullshit that all just fit some publication’s narrative—or business plan.

However, as someone who has written his small share of research papers, I appreciate your willingness to share citations if you feel it better helps make your point or assuage your concerns about proper references.

[Femphile_xoxo]

This post was kinda out of curiosity bc I wanted to know what people on this platform view as credible. But I'll definitely admit that it was a bit out of irritation that I was told my sources were invalid from multiple people when the commenter had posted the most unreliable sources 🥱🥱

But yea, you are definitely right!!! :D

[Snsl153]

"When debating with someone do you make sure that the studies you're quoting are peer-reviewed?"
When was the last time anyone actually did that? Besides, "peer-reviewed" does not equate to being true, or reliable, or able to be accepted at face value.

[Lliam]

A reliable source is one that is not corrupt. It has nothing to gain by lying or spinning. It is not connected to corrupt organizations. It does not have an "agenda" to sell.

A good source has no reason to lie or spin. It goes into detail but is clear; it gives names, dates and direct quotes; it gives corroborating evidence with multiple sources. I also look closely at the qualifications of those being quoted or interviewed.

The last sources I would trust would be from the government; the international banking establishment; for-profit NGOs or foundations; ANYONE with something to gain. The WHO, CDC, NIH, medical and pharma industries are completely corrupted.

Peer reviews are political and unreliable. And just because something isn't "peer reviewed" means nothing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

[AllThatSweetJazz]

If it’s a study, I read it myself. I don’t trust people to correctly interpret a study properly or that the study was conducted properly.


For news, there are commentators who read it who I trust. I see the things people say and draw a conclusion as to who aligns with source material. If there’s doubt or curiosity I check out the original source. If there’s footage then I check that out, that usually clears things up.

[motownplayer2000]

Not very many things at all. If they source has scientific evidence to back up the claims, if the contents can be recreated to look and be as true. Or If multiple outlets of different varying ideologies reports the same thing, factually. Then I’ll be more inclined to listen

[hypojoe]

Its the credible source is what matters you could have a reliable source of garbage information. No matter if off tv or internet

[Femphile_xoxo]

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

[hypojoe]

I replied to the wrong question so sorry

[hypojoe]

Reliable souces do not matter if they are not credible is what i meant maybe it means the same thing

[Femphile_xoxo]

So a source can have a history of lies, and yet it can still be seen as credible?

[Hanrej]

I no longer count any source of information is reliable. Without pictures to prove an article I don't believe it and typically I don't believe or at least suspect political article are wildly inflated to form opinion.

[ArtemisSilver]

Obviously anything that confirms my existing position. 😸

[anylolone]

A source that demonstrates it's claims and is consistently right.

[Femphile_xoxo]

Such as?

[anylolone]

Well, I can tell you what's not.
Einstein wasn't a reliable source when it comes to theoretical physics, that's how hard it's to be a reliable source.

You cited articles, well, a physics article that has been peer reviewed endlessly and have above 5 sigma signal, but you cut out the conclusion part.

[ManHater]

Women are always the #1 source for anything in the world including news and opinions.

[jamartheg]

Lmao

[OddBeMe]

Being available during a tough time.

[jamartheg]

Anything Andrew tate says