What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Sourcing and why it is important (1 Viewer)

sho nuff

sho nuff

Footballguy
To keep from mucking up the Psaki thread any more...I think it is important to have the conversation about sources.

Yes...people ask for links when people post information presenting it as facts.  It is not "in bad faith" to do so.  It is so we are all dealing with all of the information to better discuss things.  And often because no, believe it or not, we don't always have all the information.

But having a link is not the same as having a good link.  When people ask for one...it should be clear that what is wanted is something reputable.  While I am sure people will question what is reputable and not...and that is fair...  

In the past the adfontes chart has been presented...and they update their work often.  I think it along with a few others (allsides, mediabiasfactcheck) are very good for giving more information on a source.  Where they lean...how often they fail fact checks...basically, how reliable of a source they are.

Why this is important?  Because we are living in a time when there has been more misinformation presented to us than ever before.  Such misinformation leads to forming opinions based on false premises.  It leads to more division.  And IMO...many of these sources are thriving and profiting from that.  They want you to be misinformed...they want you to be divided and mad at "the other side".  Their goal (similar to the MSM) is clicks and attention good or bad...rather than factual reporting.  Sources do matter...similar to researching things when in college, some sources are better than others.  Some are to be relied on more than others and should be.  Because places have different journalistic standards.

So let us do better...us...all of us. For me...be less snarky when asking for a link or a source.  For others...be less snarky when being asked to back up your posts.  For others...find sources that have at least a decent reputation...stay away from fringe right and left.  If its only on one fringe site, take a clue that it might not be a quality piece or even a true story.

 
sho nuff said:
To keep from mucking up the Psaki thread any more...I think it is important to have the conversation about sources.

Yes...people ask for links when people post information presenting it as facts.  It is not "in bad faith" to do so.  It is so we are all dealing with all of the information to better discuss things.  And often because no, believe it or not, we don't always have all the information.

But having a link is not the same as having a good link.  When people ask for one...it should be clear that what is wanted is something reputable.  While I am sure people will question what is reputable and not...and that is fair...  

In the past the adfontes chart has been presented...and they update their work often.  I think it along with a few others (allsides, mediabiasfactcheck) are very good for giving more information on a source.  Where they lean...how often they fail fact checks...basically, how reliable of a source they are.

Why this is important?  Because we are living in a time when there has been more misinformation presented to us than ever before.  Such misinformation leads to forming opinions based on false premises.  It leads to more division.  And IMO...many of these sources are thriving and profiting from that.  They want you to be misinformed...they want you to be divided and mad at "the other side".  Their goal (similar to the MSM) is clicks and attention good or bad...rather than factual reporting.  Sources do matter...similar to researching things when in college, some sources are better than others.  Some are to be relied on more than others and should be.  Because places have different journalistic standards.

So let us do better...us...all of us. For me...be less snarky when asking for a link or a source.  For others...be less snarky when being asked to back up your posts.  For others...find sources that have at least a decent reputation...stay away from fringe right and left.  If its only on one fringe site, take a clue that it might not be a quality piece or even a true story.
Click to expand...
Didn't even make it to the next paragraph.  Here's a tip.  No one here views you are the source expert.  If you don't like someone's source show some restraint and not reply instead of turning the discussion into sources.  Most people that do that do so because they can't refute the points made in the article.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Didn't even make it to the next paragraph.  Here's a tip.  No one here views you are the source expert.  If you don't like someone's source show some restraint and not reply instead of turning the discussion into sources.  Most people that do that do so because they can't refute the points made in the article.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting us know. 

 
sho nuff said:
Not at all what i stated...nor even implied.  Do you care to address anything I actually said in my post?
Click to expand...
You are the most mad person on the site about the subject.  Nobody else takes this obsession to such a level. You have blind faith and blind distrust based on source.  Life is not that cut and dry.  This is a message board that should strive to not be so homogeneous and respect all perspectives.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
You are the most mad person on the site about the subject.  Nobody else takes this obsession to such a level. You have blind faith and blind distrust based on source.  Life is not that cut and dry.  This is a message board that should strive to not be so homogeneous and respect all perspectives.  
Click to expand...
So no...you don't wish to talk about the topic...you just wish to take more shots at me.

Thanks...

 
knowledge dropper said:
To summarize:
 

Washington Post, NYT, CNN, MSNBC is good

Everything else is bad. 
 

End of thread. 
Click to expand...
The first step is to exploit angry conservatives by promoting the narrative that the liberal press is fake news.

The second step is to exploit angry conservatives by creating and promoting your own fake news.

Once those steps are complete, you've got a perfect circle -- an endless cycle of complaining about the left while simultaneously encouraging and defending your own tribe for doing the things which you allegedly detest. You can push a steady stream of fake news onto your followers, and if anyone ever questions you, you can just say "BUT WHATABOUT!"

In the early stages, this is just a cynical game of exploitation for profit. But when pushed to extremes, it can become a legitimate danger, as we saw on January 6th.

 
Sea Duck said:
The first step is to exploit angry conservatives by promoting the narrative that the liberal press is fake news.

The second step is to exploit angry conservatives by creating and promoting your own fake news.

Once those steps are complete, you've got a perfect circle -- an endless cycle of complaining about the left while simultaneously encouraging and defending your own tribe for doing the things which you allegedly detest. You can push a steady stream of fake news onto your followers, and if anyone ever questions you, you can just say "BUT WHATABOUT!"

In the early stages, this is just a cynical game of exploitation for profit. But when pushed to extremes, it can become a legitimate danger, as we saw on January 6th.
Click to expand...
I can do the same thing with “MSM” that led to the BLM protests and riots.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
You are the most mad person on the site about the subject.  Nobody else takes this obsession to such a level. You have blind faith and blind distrust based on source.  Life is not that cut and dry.  This is a message board that should strive to not be so homogeneous and respect all perspectives.  
Click to expand...
this is true though

 
sho nuff said:
...I think it is important to have the conversation about sources.

......  It is not "in bad faith" to do so.  It is so we are all dealing with all of the information to better discuss things.  And often because no, believe it or not, we don't always have all the information......

But having a link is not the same as having a good link.  When people ask for one...it should be clear that what is wanted is something reputable.  While I am sure people will question what is reputable and not...and that is fair... 

Why this is important?  Because we are living in a time when there has been more misinformation presented to us than ever before.  Such misinformation leads to forming opinions based on false premises.  It leads to more division.  And IMO...many of these sources are thriving and profiting from that.  They want you to be misinformed...they want you to be divided and mad at "the other side". ....

So let us do better...us...all of us. ....
Click to expand...


VIDEO: What is Concern Trolling? •Jul 20, 2019

Concern trolling is a form of Internet trolling in which someone enters a discussion with claims that he or she supports the view of the discussion, but has concerns. In fact, the concern troll is opposed to the view of the discussion, and he or she uses concern trolling to sow doubt and dissent in the community of commenters or posters. Although this practice originated on the Internet, it has since spread to the real world as well, with concern trolls popping up in a variety of places from network television to op-ed columns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3R33JWLKbA

*******

You say you care about free speech and accuracy and want everyone here to do "better." Who gets to define this mythical form of better? You? You've failed to understand a basic reality of life - It's not a crime to think and do differently than exactly how you choose to think and do. You won't give what you take yourself, which is why no one trusts you.

If you want to find this utopia of better, then behave as an example.  I said this in 2006, if you speak up, then step up. That's the price of putting your name to something. That's how a man behaves.

People can tolerate insidious behavior if it's done with effort and excellence. Your endless chirping in people's ears is just lazy and mediocre.

And now you have "all the information" as to why many people here don't actually respect you.

 
sho nuff said:
And likely nothing to do with the topic, right?  Just more taking potshots would be my guess.  Didn't open the post.
Click to expand...
I never bother with youtube links and the like.  

I get the effort, and I am right there with you.   There has been several attempts to talk about this or on things like the media bias charts.  Mostly it goes ignored or the usual suspects don't bother coming into those threads.  Only so much you can do, I guess.  

 
I view all sources with a level of skepticism, some more than others.  I never dismiss facts based soley on where it came from.   Questionable sources sometimes come up with important stories and facts.  Sometimes the best source cover up stories and are loose with facts. 

 
sho nuff said:
Yes stuff like that has soured her reputation.  She can be good...but enough moments like that hurt her.
Click to expand...
What other moments like that have their been for her?  None that I recall.

And it didn't really hurt her. Neither she nor MSNBC gave much advance hype on this. IIRC first news about tax returns were only about an hour to an hour and one half before airtime. People talk like it was akin to Geraldo and Al Capone's vault (which was promoted for weeks prior to broadcast) but there was little to no advance build up on the tax returns. 

 
sho nuff said:
To keep from mucking up the Psaki thread any more...I think it is important to have the conversation about sources.

Yes...people ask for links when people post information presenting it as facts.  It is not "in bad faith" to do so.  It is so we are all dealing with all of the information to better discuss things.  And often because no, believe it or not, we don't always have all the information.

But having a link is not the same as having a good link.  When people ask for one...it should be clear that what is wanted is something reputable.  While I am sure people will question what is reputable and not...and that is fair...  

In the past the adfontes chart has been presented...and they update their work often.  I think it along with a few others (allsides, mediabiasfactcheck) are very good for giving more information on a source.  Where they lean...how often they fail fact checks...basically, how reliable of a source they are.

Why this is important?  Because we are living in a time when there has been more misinformation presented to us than ever before.  Such misinformation leads to forming opinions based on false premises.  It leads to more division.  And IMO...many of these sources are thriving and profiting from that.  They want you to be misinformed...they want you to be divided and mad at "the other side".  Their goal (similar to the MSM) is clicks and attention good or bad...rather than factual reporting.  Sources do matter...similar to researching things when in college, some sources are better than others.  Some are to be relied on more than others and should be.  Because places have different journalistic standards.

So let us do better...us...all of us. For me...be less snarky when asking for a link or a source.  For others...be less snarky when being asked to back up your posts.  For others...find sources that have at least a decent reputation...stay away from fringe right and left.  If its only on one fringe site, take a clue that it might not be a quality piece or even a true story.
Click to expand...
You don't read what the other side reads.   You don't discuss, you dismiss.   Stop engaging  the other side.   You are not speaking to them.  You are speaking at and down to them.   

Offered in friendship.

 
This is coming from the guy who once asked for a link about people voting for Trump and the Supreme Court. I had said a lot of Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump because of court appointments. He disagreed. When I linked to a very credible source that was rehashing the results of a Gallup Poll, the dude still proceeded to argue about the source. I then linked to Gallup, IIRC. He still continued to debate the issue.

It's bad faith. I wasted an hour of my time to track #### down about a very, very basic point, and he was still arguing with it. Again, it's a self-reported "Why I voted for Trump" question. So many people identified the courts that it was the number one reason. Matlock here wanted to still debate the evidence at hand. Sourcing? Grow up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
This is coming from the guy who once asked for a link about people voting for Trump and the Supreme Court. I had said a lot of Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump because of court appointments. He disagreed. When I linked to a very credible source that was rehashing the results of a Gallup Poll, the dude still proceeded to argue about the source. I then linked to Gallup, IIRC. He still continued to debate the issue.

It's bad faith. I wasted an hour of my time to track #### down about a very, very basic point, and he was still arguing with it. Again, it's a self-reported "Why I voted for Trump" question. So many people identified the courts that it was the number one reason. Matlock here wanted to still debate the evidence at hand. Sourcing? Grow up.
Click to expand...
Link please. 

 
Don't forget polls.   Polls are always accurate when from the right source.   As long as it's a poll surce the OP agrees with.

Polls!!!

 
How many posts in the 31 even try addressing the topic...vs. addressing the poster of the topic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
How many posts in the 31 even try addressing the topic...vs. addressing the poster of the topic?
Click to expand...
Because it's a naked bad faith grab and deserves to be pointed out that when you're begging for sources, you're just looking to give somebody a hard time. It's not for edification nor for understanding. It's to take issue with every little thing somebody says. That's the modus operandi in these threads and when they get sidetracked by your demands for links. You've now proven you're obsessed with this tactic by taking out the thread and calling asking for links just dandy when all you want is to give people a hard time. People don't like that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Because it's a naked bad faith grab and deserves to be pointed out that when you're begging for sources, you're just looking to give somebody a hard time. It's not for edification nor for understanding. It's to take issue with every little thing somebody says. That's the modus operandi in these threads and when they get sidetracked by your demands for links. You've now proven you're obsessed with this tactic by taking out the thread and calling asking for links just dandy when all you want is to give people a hard time. People don't like that. 
Click to expand...
I disagree with this take on what I am doing and what I have done.  I think this is again bias about poster vs what has actually been posted.  Its tribalism proven out on a message board.

 
sho nuff said:
I disagree with this take on what I am doing and what I have done.  I think this is again bias about poster vs what has actually been posted.  Its tribalism proven out on a message board.
Click to expand...
I'm personally not down with any tribe on the message board aside from the men and women in the music threads. Nobody is ganging up on you but to tell you what they're seeing. I don't run with the people liking my posts or agreeing with me about this, even. We're generally not politically that simpatico. I'm very anti-Trump and think that his lies led to stuff like this, this obsession with linking and the like. He deserves part of the blame for the culture of nitpicking on the boards. You won't hear those people say that. So it's not all in lockstep, a one hive-mind kind of thing. It's that you're doing it with what you think may be a point to prove, but it comes off way differently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
This is coming from the guy who once asked for a link about people voting for Trump and the Supreme Court. I had said a lot of Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump because of court appointments. He disagreed. When I linked to a very credible source that was rehashing the results of a Gallup Poll, the dude still proceeded to argue about the source. I then linked to Gallup, IIRC. He still continued to debate the issue.

It's bad faith. I wasted an hour of my time to track #### down about a very, very basic point, and he was still arguing with it. Again, it's a self-reported "Why I voted for Trump" question. So many people identified the courts that it was the number one reason. Matlock here wanted to still debate the evidence at hand. Sourcing? Grow up.
Click to expand...
All day long, every day. Thousands of examples. 

 
rockaction said:
I'm personally not down with any tribe on the message board aside from the men and women in the music threads. Nobody is ganging up on you but to tell you what they're seeing. I don't run with the people liking my posts or agreeing with me about this, even. We're generally not politically that simpatico. I'm very anti-Trump and think that his lies led to stuff like this, this obsession with linking and the like. He deserves part of the blame for the culture of nitpicking on the boards. You won't hear those people say that. So it's not all in lockstep, a one hive-mind kind of thing. It's that you're doing it with what you think may be a point to prove, but it comes off way differently.
Click to expand...
The point is you are letting your own bias cloud the discussion (as are others).  I don't think I said a word about politics or sides or Trump in that...tribalism is not all about political identity.  You are letting preconceived notions about me...affect how you view what I have done and said.  Notions from history of posting for sure.  No doubt I have earned some of the bias against me.  But its still there...does not matter what I change over the years in how I talk to people...the bias is still there.  This thread is very much showing that...as has another.  Just as I suspect the same topic from other posters would have been reacted to differently (as it was when MT posted about this type of topic (its buried on the last page of this subforum).

 
And, sho. I like you. I'm not going to be part and parcel to ganging up on you just to get kicks. I think people are genuinely trying to tell you something about your delivery here. And that's it for the personal stuff on my end.

 
knowledge dropper said:
Provide one link of you calling out a poster for Vox, Salon, Daily Beast, HuffPost, etc.  TIA

Tribalism?!?  Amazing.  
Click to expand...
Please post how often those are used...please post when they are used.  Ive stated in multiple threads when I have questioned links that if I or others post things like Vox they too should be called out for it.  But again...this is more talk about me...rather than addressing the overall topic.  Can we just try to not do that?

 
sho nuff said:
The point is you are letting your own bias cloud the discussion (as are others).  I don't think I said a word about politics or sides or Trump in that...tribalism is not all about political identity.  You are letting preconceived notions about me...affect how you view what I have done and said.  Notions from history of posting for sure.  No doubt I have earned some of the bias against me.  But its still there...does not matter what I change over the years in how I talk to people...the bias is still there.  This thread is very much showing that...as has another.  Just as I suspect the same topic from other posters would have been reacted to differently (as it was when MT posted about this type of topic (its buried on the last page of this subforum).
Click to expand...
It's not bias when it's experience and it's quite clear where the person stands on an issue. It has everything to do with politics and Trump, because that's been the fight the past four years. Lies. "Link?" Well, here's a link from. "Not good enough." Well here's a link from a different source. "Still not good enough. I disagree. That's not really what was said." On and on ad infinitum.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
How many posts in the 31 even try addressing the topic...vs. addressing the poster of the topic?
Click to expand...
You have a confirmation  bias.   Your premise of the topic is wrong.   Hence it's hard not to address  poster.

Maybe you could pick a list of sources that you accept.     Or sources you won't accept.  Or don't ask for sources and do the leg work on your own to source information.    Or just move on and not respond.

 
rockaction said:
It's not bias when it's experience and it's quite clear where the person stands on an issue. It has everything to do with politics and Trump, because that's been the fight the past four years. Lies. "Link?" Well, here's a link from. "Not good enough." Well here's a link from a different source. "Still not good enough. I disagree. That's not really what was said." On and on ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Yes...it absolutely is bias...even if its based on history.  You are basing my request and this topic based on things you claim I did years ago (and I dispute the recollection of how that went down).

Its not "not good enough"...its find reputable sources...that is the point of the thread.  We should not be sharing sources that have history of just flat out making things up.  By history...Im not talking about getting a fact wrong here or there...but constantly getting things wrong and doing so purposefully.  Spreading conspiracy theories and lies...complete fringe slant in either direction.

It is important...as I stated in the first post here...to get things right today at a time where misinformation is at its highest.  People complain about it being due to social media or whatever.  But the fact is...its out there because people are believing it...people are spreading it.  And we can't even agree here to not be part of that...because of who posted the suggestion or the discussion.  Seriously...that is where we are on this board.

 
There are literally zero sources that can be fully trusted. 

Can some be trusted more often than others, sure.

Still doesnt mean squat without reading the information being discussed and researching since even the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc will have zero problems presenting misleading or unvetted information if it suits their agenda. 

It didnt used to be this way. They threw most of their standards out the window during the last 4 years.

A few years ago I had infinitely more faith in the NYT and WaPo. Shells of what they used to be. 

People think I expect too much and say things like they cant fact check everything that is presented to them. So if somebody tells the reporter a lie, they arent responsible for vetting them. 

People dont realize that is what they used to do. I have used this example before, but I will never forget when the whole Bernie/not bernie incident happened and somebody gave the post a copy of a yearbook to prove it was Bernie and he was wearing the same outfit in another picture. They sent a reporter to that schools library halfway across the country to get an independent copy of the yearbook to verify.

They dont do that anymore. The new standard is that they dont care anymore about objective truth. As long as the person being interviewed is saying xyz, and they agree with xyz, they will present the info. Information that sometimes can be proven false with just a simple google search. 

Need another example? Look at the Debbie Ramirez story. The NYT rejected her story initially because they couldnt back up any of the details provided. The New Yorker said, pfffft, so what, lets publish! So since the New Yorker had published it they were like ok fine, to print we go, need our clicks, and since the New Yorker already did it first, we are all good. 

 
quick-hands said:
You have a confirmation  bias.   Your premise of the topic is wrong.   Hence it's hard not to address  poster.

Maybe you could pick a list of sources that you accept.     Or sources you won't accept.  Or don't ask for sources and do the leg work on your own to source information.    Or just move on and not respond.
Click to expand...
In what way is the premise of the topic wrong?  

I think it has been suggested in the past...and I said this in what started this trhead... 

n the past the adfontes chart has been presented...and they update their work often.  I think it along with a few others (allsides, mediabiasfactcheck) are very good for giving more information on a source.  Where they lean...how often they fail fact checks...basically, how reliable of a source they are.
Click to expand...
If you find your source is far left or far right...that it is called unreliable...that it promotes misinformation and conspiracy theories.  Probably a good bet that people would question the link.

The other point is people are demand others do the leg work to back up their own points.  We have been asked here not to do it that way...if you make an assertion, back it up...especially if asked.  Because not all of us are reading the same sources.  I think people understand that.  You may see something somewhere others have not seen.  But there also may be a reason people have not seen it...because it came from sources that should not be trusted.

Specific sources...its a long list.

But simply put acceptable sources are easy to find... AP News, BBC News, Reuters, Business Insider, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, The Hill, Axios  (talking as news sources...when you get into their editorials that all depends obviously from source to source).  That also does not mean every author is credible either...as every place has some that have questionable reputations (for example...John Solomon wrote for The Hill and probably not good to trust a lot of what he has done after what we have seen the last year or so out of him)

Bad sources...also easy to identify ones that are just flat out awful.  But there was a thread on this already...as I said...buried at the end of the forum now.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/752704-news-sites-to-avoid-citing-or-clicking-on/

 
rockaction said:
Bias based on history is simply empirical evidence towards a broader point.
Click to expand...
It could be...it could also be perceived based on past interactions and how you saw them...or how tone was then vs. now.  I did a lot of things differently in the past.

I may have replied with simply "blatant falsehood".  Was asked to stop...saw that it was  not productive and changed how I did things.  I may have responded even more snarky in the past...I may have argued things at times to get a rise out of people.  What we try to do is change for the better.  And it is an ongoing effort.  Does that mean I am the same as I was 10 years ago...4 years ago...even last year?  I hope not.  But I would bet plenty of people still think I am the exact same.  Id say they are wrong.

Id also guess the recollection of the whole supreme court thing...I would guess that conversation happened a bit differently.  Similar to how people complain on the board about being suspended for something...then the moderator comes in and points out a totally different thing.  Their own bias about being "wronged" clouded what happened.

 
Sigh. 

I've pretty much given up on this one. I believe some people know what they're doing and they'd simply rather spend time and energy writing about other posters and how they post instead of discussing the actual issue. It is what it is. If that's how they choose to spend their time, so be it. I'm not going to give it any more time. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gatorman
"they chose to do this" narrative as an excuse (when it is really not a choice)
2
Replies
71
Views
1K
Gatorman
Gatorman
GordonGekko
Paypal Attempts AGAIN To Create $2,500 Terms Of Service Fine PER INSTANCE Of Perceived "Intolerance" (10/9/22 15:01 PST)
Replies
31
Views
1K
Bottomfeeder Sports
Bottomfeeder Sports
timschochet
Is Biden right that oil companies can lower prices at the pump but won’t?
3 4 5
Replies
200
Views
4K
Whyatt
W

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top