How trustworthy is what you read online?

[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 January 24, 2013 by freetoroam

[Space Commander Travis]

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

[orangepeaceful79]

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.

[Ashotep]

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]

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.

[Grandpa Greenman]

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 January 24, 2013 by pallidin

[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.

[Simbi Laveau]

And for everyone saying they only trust certain sources ,....most of those sources are owned by certain parties,and are sponsored by certain parties ,that they cannot say anything against ,or against their interests,lest they lose all their funding .

Most major news stations are such entities.

Channel 11 news in nyc has said,we cannot ever do true reports on prescription drug dangers,or we would lose all our sponsors .

Who do you think pays for your daily news program ?

All the companies who's drug commercials they show all day long .

Saying off the beaten path news sources are not capable to be true,is exactly what they want you to think .

Half the news ,especially about govt ,war and terrorism ,is all false propaganda .

But hey,believe what you want ,while watching all those commercials for ******* and celebrex and every other drug company that owns your local news station .... .

http://rense.com/general57/INTENE.HTM

[karmakazi]

I feel there is a slight advantage in being able to view the group consensus. When you're actively searching for information you find three things - the two extremes of thought on the subject and then mostly ideas that fall somewhere in the middle (the most likely to be accurate). If you look up a specific kind of car for example, you'll find people who hate it, people who love it, and then some honest and realistic evaluations.

Except for reviews of apartments...in my experience they frequently are skewed to the negative. I've read some where people claimed the apartment complex they lived in was practically hell on earth, but when I lived in the same complex (s) I thought it was very nice and enjoyed my time there.

Of course reading info on the internet only provides sound information if you can approach it logically and understand that it is, in fact, the internet. People can write whatever they want so I always read as many different opinions as I can and look for the facts within them to form my own opinion.

[ExpandMyMind]

People under-estimate just how reliable a source Wikipedia is. The average amount of mistakes per page (or subject, rather) for an encyclopedia like Britannica or something similar is 3, while Wikipedia sits at 4 per page. This is referring to science articles. Hardly what you would call a massive difference.

Edit - http://slashdot.org/story/05/12/15/1352207/wikipedias-accuracy-compared-to-britannica

Edited January 25, 2013 by ExpandMyMind

[Indiogene]

What you learned on internet sources such as Wikipedia (the increasingly undependable online resource) should be taken with a "grain of salt", and Wikipedia uncovered some old hoaxes or unproven events laying around on their site like the Upper Peninsula War and Bicholim Conflict.

Important is be careful when you meet somebody you only knew or fraternized over the internet, like the GEICO commercial shown a woman met a man of her dreams does not look like his online dating site profile.

[ExpandMyMind]

What you learned on internet sources such as Wikipedia (the increasingly undependable online resource) should be taken with a "grain of salt", and Wikipedia uncovered some old hoaxes or unproven events laying around on their site like the Upper Peninsula War and Bicholim Conflict.

From an academical stand-point, all information, whether it is read from secondary sources such as encyclopaedias or primary sources such as journal articles, must be taken with a "grain of salt". All information should be verified. This is not exclusive to the internet.

[questionmark]

anywhere from 1 to 8... it only depends on the source.