YouTube will add Wikipedia snippets to conspiracy videos

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Wookiep

why is it so bad to give someone a stepping stone to research?

Because that's not what they're doing!

YouTube will determine what exactly qualifies as a conspiracy

www.cnet.com...

They're targeting 'conspiracy theories' and making judgements on them backed by a user-edited source that is not even allowed in schools as a cited source.

Where do you see that they're going to offer supplemental information on all other topics because they care so much about our education??

a reply to: penroc3

I don't even know where to begin with this ridiculous comment. YouTube didn't change the world, if anything, user generated content has. They're filtering it so bad now that soon, people will have NO choice but to find an alternative.

And just no about Wiki. You're clueless if you think someone's opinion equates to "research". There was a time using Wikipedia as an actual source was banned from ATS and for good reason. Still might be banned, I'm not sure since I've seen people using it again lately.

Either way, you're not getting the big picture here. If you've been on ATS for 12 years and still haven't figured it out, then I don't know what else to tell you.

a reply to: Wookiep

user generated content is youtube.

hard science is hard science and no matter where its posted it will be what it is.

and i didnt say wiki was perfect, why are you so against giving someone a source for information that can spur someone to go on to do more serious research?

by definition a conspiracy is a secret, so for most things in the CT world it's all opinion otherwise it wouldn't be a theory.

a reply to: penroc3

Because it's common sense not to use Wikipedia as a source. They are NOT a recognized source, period. Just because their might exist some great scientific articles within, doesn't guarantee anything.

There are some great articles written on ATS by tons of very smart members here, backed by other sources.. Ive seen tons. Ive also seen a lot of bs. Would you want your kid using ATS as a source because some threads here are amazing for a college paper?

Use common sense. YouTube was never intended to be a source for proof of anything, It never has. Its purpose is to allow users to upload videos of all kinds. Its just a platform to allow users to upload videos. People know this already. No need to push an anti-conspiracy agenda or mute anyone without lefty ideals.

I don't know about the whole wikileaks thing.

All the pizza related emails are either fake and highly organized to try and start a civil war, more right removal, lone gunman/gun incidents, or wikileaks is real and would be nuked off the face of the earth before it would be allowed to do what it does.

I'm going with bunk propaganda.

It IS legal now. Would they make propaganda legal then not use it?

Not likely.

a reply to: penroc3

hard science is hard science and no matter where its posted it will be what it is.

The only problem with that is , who's hard science ?
I have seen some laughable science content on wiki made by "wiki specialists" (these are called "specialists" because they pay their dues to wiki)

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: loam

there are alot of awful videos out there that make the craziest claims.

for adults with common sense and willing to research it is easily debunked, but for young children or the less smart i can see it being a good thing even if it is wiki, it's a starting point for research.

There was a video on BEKs, Black eyed kids an urban myth

THis user posted many fake videos about them saying they were outside his house, ect ect

lots of people on YouTube believed him, a number of them very young

We even had a post here on this site about these videos and members here talked about ways to trap a kid and bring it in the house, even killing them

yeah that’s right, members of ATS talking about trapping children with black eyes in their house but told if they kill them their eyes might revert to normal colour and they would be in trouble with the police



Saw a user about 10 years ago who posted many videos of him stalking his neighbour in London saying she was a demon , he was insane

So concerned for her I informed the police, only time I have ever done so but I felt I had to

a reply to: Wookiep

I am sorry, your common sense is off.

You do not have to use Wikipedia as THE source, but as A source. See the difference?
YT does not STOP PLAYING the video you are about to watch, YT wants to give you A source.

If I am watching some conspiracy video on YT with a in my opinion laughable view, I might want to find out more about it. Don't you do that? Do you straight up believe everything that video just told you?

And bringing up scientific points to a video isn't the wrong way to bring people to really think about what they just saw.

a reply to: Gothmog

Where is the problem?

Or, as a better question, what is a better source?

Way to kill your own brand

originally posted by: abago71
Some of the most diligent researchers. Wrong group to pick on, IMHO.

You’re funny.

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
So YT thinks Wikipedia is a credible source? I recall we were absolutely BANNED from using wikipedia as any source in High School. The teachers would straight up laugh at you like "Okay, what's your next reference, SNOPES? hahahahahaha"

-Alee

And lemme guess, you got straight A’s from using sources like natural news?

Hahahhahaha

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha

They're targeting 'conspiracy theories' and making judgements on them backed by a user-edited source that is not even allowed in schools as a cited source.

Luckily conspiracy theorists are diligent then, isn’t it?

a reply to: loam

I hate to say it, but it looks like Youtube is no longer an option.

I dont need it to get info. I wont use it for entertainment now is all.

a reply to: loam

Nothing like using a source that almost anyone can edit, to "fight" fake news.

This shouldn't be funny.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Then we have Jared Loughner...

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: loam

Nothing like using a source that almost anyone can edit, to "fight" fake news.

This shouldn't be funny.

Yeah, most likely the youtubers will go edit the article to say what their video says.

Interesting times indeed!

Yeah like Wikipedia isn't edited for political or other nefarious purposes...

YouTube = brand suicide.

Maybe they should watch the Jordan Peterson video on the right to be offended, it's on their website.

Can't wait to see what pages they'll link to when it comes to the avalanche of Google conspiracy / YouTube conspiracy videos all this litany of their behavior is sure to eventually trigger...

a reply to: Chadwickus

As much cheaper as any political partisan / ideologue / troll / blissfully ignorant / etc type.

You know what I mean.