On sources...

[conuly]

Some people (many people) complain that you can never trust an online source.

Well, that's not true.

First, of course, we do have to define "online source". Is an online source something that is online? Or is it something that's online with no print companion (therefore the NYTimes online wouldn't count as an online source)? Already we run into troubles. If it's got a print companion, is that print source trustworthy? How do we know?

Gah. Wait. Why do we trust print sources?

No, really, why do we trust print sources? I'm not just talking about actual papers and such with citations, I'm talking about people who inherantly believe the printed word. Why? I've seen blatantly wrong things in sources that *should* have been trustworthy. God only knows how many math homeworks I did, only to find out that the answer given in the back of the book was wrong, or how many science textbooks I was assigned where the teacher spent time telling us that the book's formula or reasoning was incorrect. These are textbooks, and they were wrong. And books (non-textbooks) with citations are often wrong too - you see one book that says "this word really comes from this other word" and another book has a completely different history for that same word. The dictionary lists neither. Newspapers? Can you trust them? Maybe a trusted newspaper - but which newspaper would that be? The NYTimes had the Jason Blair scandal, the... okay, I can't think of another big scandal from a trusted news source (fox doesn't count), but you get the point. You *can't* trust printed sources.

This is a problem. A big one.

Well, there's a solution, though it's not a pleasant one. Don't spurn information from one source or another, just because you don't like the medium. The reality is that there are several sites that I trust infinitely more than certain printed media, such as the Enquirer. Instead, take the information, from whatever source, and (this is important) do your own research. This can mean checking the source's sources. This can mean doing a study of some sort. This can mean looking to see what other sources say, though majority opinion isn't really the most reliable type of verification you can run.

This is a pain in the ass, really.

Of course, there's another option, which is to ignore it. You don't *actually* have to know if George Washington chopped down that cherry tree. Does it really matter to you if the information on Klingon that you got from this site is a little inaccurate? Are you really planning on learning Klingon anyway? If you're talking about something for fun, I guarantee you most people know you don't know what you're talking about and don't really care. And if they do, they'll correct you.

And yes, this means me. If you really care about anything I say (I'm sorry to remind you of this), please, go out and learn something. On your own. Do your own research. That's... well, it's about the only option in the world.

And yes, I am *still* cold. House down the block burned down or something.

Comments

[lakidaa.livejournal.com]

This is why the gods allowed Snopes to be.

*worships the Snopes, for it is beauty website-ifyed*

um. yeah. I like researching. I've reasearched into Geisha alot, because I planned to create a social class based off of them and some old Greek genderbent-things.

With hawaiian-tropical colors, food and fabrics. All I have to do now is cover Hawaii.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

The boy is currently at work on something along these lines. To make a long story short, it appears that a great deal of historiography on World War I has been repeating certain tropes about German pre-war planning and intentions that are, to put it mildly, inaccurate. Part of this is because the key documents were lost when the Potsdam archives were destroyed during World War II, but part of it is just historians repeating what others have written without checking.

Since it's not exactly feasible to do one's own research in many cases -- like when the archives are in another country -- one must sometimes get by with checking the bibliography. Even that's more effort than a lot of people put into it.

[conuly]

Oy vey.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

May I cross-post this to my journal, excluding the last line?

[conuly]

I'm not likely to stop anybody doing that. Just link it, 'k? Don't c+p.

[conuly]

Or do both, just don't *just* copy and paste.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

Oh, I would link it and specifically credit you by name. :)

[adiva_calandia]

If the print sources agree, or if the Net sources agree, or if all the sources agree, I'll trust it. Otherwise, I'll say something like "Sources disagree on point blah-de-blah, but it is generally accepted that blah-de-bloo-de-bloo." Shows I've done my reasearch. :)

*sends warm vibes* It's cold up here in AK, too.

[lakidaa.livejournal.com]

This is why the gods allowed Snopes to be.

*worships the Snopes, for it is beauty website-ifyed*

um. yeah. I like researching. I've reasearched into Geisha alot, because I planned to create a social class based off of them and some old Greek genderbent-things.

With hawaiian-tropical colors, food and fabrics. All I have to do now is cover Hawaii.

[cumaeansibyl.livejournal.com]

The boy is currently at work on something along these lines. To make a long story short, it appears that a great deal of historiography on World War I has been repeating certain tropes about German pre-war planning and intentions that are, to put it mildly, inaccurate. Part of this is because the key documents were lost when the Potsdam archives were destroyed during World War II, but part of it is just historians repeating what others have written without checking.

Since it's not exactly feasible to do one's own research in many cases -- like when the archives are in another country -- one must sometimes get by with checking the bibliography. Even that's more effort than a lot of people put into it.

[conuly]

Oy vey.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

May I cross-post this to my journal, excluding the last line?

[conuly]

I'm not likely to stop anybody doing that. Just link it, 'k? Don't c+p.

[conuly]

Or do both, just don't *just* copy and paste.

[bridgetester.livejournal.com]

Oh, I would link it and specifically credit you by name. :)

[adiva_calandia]

If the print sources agree, or if the Net sources agree, or if all the sources agree, I'll trust it. Otherwise, I'll say something like "Sources disagree on point blah-de-blah, but it is generally accepted that blah-de-bloo-de-bloo." Shows I've done my reasearch. :)

*sends warm vibes* It's cold up here in AK, too.