20 replies to this topic

[orangepeaceful79]

Just curious about the perceptions of how trustworthy the internet is.

[freetoroam]

Depends on the source, but most things will have to  be cross referenced with other articles on the same thing, sometimes, you just have to come up with your own conclusion.
If its youtube then its sometimes very difficult to tell....last night was watching a programme about youtube and they showed a man riding on top of a van along the motorway at speed, then they showed it was infact fake, it was done in a studio then 'videoshopped?'
Sometimes they are so blatantly false, but I tend to give a little giggle.
Some of the conspiracy theories bring on a bit more than just a giggle,  but, though very rarely, some do have some base to it.

Edited by freetoroam, 24 January 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

If it's on Youtube or Wookiepedia, it must be true.

[orangepeaceful79]

Lord Vetinari, on 24 January 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

If it's on Youtube or Wookiepedia, it must be true.

Yes, of course.  Its all true.  every last morsel.  Yay crowdsourcing!

[WoIverine]

More trustworthy than what you see on tv.

[Hilander]

I would have to consider the source but I think you need to look at different articles to get the full story a lot of times.  There is this one forum where people will post stuff from places like the onion and believe it.

[Sean93]

Depends on the source. Things like Wikipedia are open to error but so are books too and their problem is that they cannot be edited until a new edition comes out whereas online info sources are under constant watch and edits are inspected and fixed...I've tried to do some malicious edits on Wikipedia, tried to be obscure but they still vanish an hour later.

No information is 100% accurate, no matter the source.

[orangepeaceful79]

Sean93, on 24 January 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Depends on the source. Things like Wikipedia are open to error but so are books too and their problem is that they cannot be edited until a new edition comes out whereas online info sources are under constant watch and edits are inspected and fixed...I've tried to do some malicious edits on Wikipedia, tried to be obscure but they still vanish an hour later.

No information is 100% accurate, no matter the source.

you make a great point here.  I was just curious about the perceptions of the members here.  Thanks for the input and for voting, if you did.

[Simbi Laveau]

Depending upon the topic ,its 50/50 .
If you had had a rating of seven ,I'd have said 4 .right in the middle.
All topics with agendas have two sides,both of which post tons of literature,and or propaganda .
For instance ,when we argue here about vaccine safety ,everyone can post ten URLs to bolster their argument,but the other side posts tons of propaganda debunking the other side .
If you go by that,neither side can win the argument,it just depends upon which side you decide to believe,because of your own belief system ,and possibly personal experience .

In most things,including say gossip about a famous person ,some things are based in fact,but it probably completely blown out of proportion ,so assume you can believe there's something to what's being said ,but not to believe it all.
Use common sense.


Then we allegedly have completely fact based sites like Snopes ,but I know for a fact,they've outright lied about some items,as I have personal experience in the matters,so I now question everything they post ,and no longer use it as a tried and true source .
Snopes being untrustworthy has also become a rumor,and there is propaganda to deny this as well .


So......its a crap shoot ,depending upon what youre looking up.


As for sources like Wikipedia.There a professor ,who ,as a homework assignment,gives his students a topic ,makes them site the wiki article about it,and then write a paper on the same topic  ,correcting all the mistakes and inconsistencies from the wiki .

Then it appears google earth can even be altered ....so who knows .

[PlanB]

I just find it funny that there are so many people that claim to resist being spoonfed by the mainstream media and are incredulous about everything it reports, yet will totally succumb to a slick youtube clip or overtly biased article as the real truth.

Of course, it's all a balance. This day and age, we have more outlets than ever to receive information. Use common sense and do your best to verify the info.

[Darkwind]

It is like anything else humans do, they lie and distort to their own advantage. You have to check your source and look at other sources. I also look at what else the source is put out.  If they are putting out a lot of misinformation then suspect everything.

[pallidin]

For myself, I tend to trust mainstream internet media, such as CNN, etc, BUT...
I particulary like reading comments, as I have often found clarification/correction on the original story.

As some other's said, get you're news from a variety of "legitamate" sources and decide on one's own.

Edited by pallidin, 24 January 2013 - 09:56 PM.

[Hasina]

I go with that Geico commercial. 'They can't put anything on the Internet that's not true.' 'Where did you read that?' 'The Internet.'

I voted one.

[AsteroidX]

Ill have to say what I read is normally trustworthy. I research what I read if Im not sure or use secondary sources to verify most of what I read if i think its necessary. Its certainly leaps and bounds above mainstream media.

[rashore]

I tend to be kind of a researcher, so I'm fairly confidant that once I rake through a bunch of sources I probably have a trustworthy result. It does really depend on where you go. And how deep you are willing to dig into a subject.