Quoting unreliable sources.

Why is it that here on ATS, people will quote from an unreliable news source and then it seems that these threads will run 4,5,6 pages deep discussing the topic that was at hand?

For me, If I jump into a thread, and lets just say it is quoting from info wars, I automaticly back out of the thread and go onto another topic.

If we are here to "Deny Ignorance", why are we still visiting these ignorant websites that have no basis of claim regarding the story at hand? Why are we using these information websites if we know for a fact that they do not spread truth?

People of ATS!

Do not quote from:

Infowars
PrisonPlanet
The Onion

Are there any others to add to this list?

Can we please stop spreading ignorance and start denying it?

JackCash

[edit on 7-7-2010 by JackCash]

Because people dont bother doing any actual research into a topic, which is a shame, because basicaly the majority of threads just descend into un educated nonesense.

There should just be a board specificly for moderated debate, people might actualy learn something.

Infact heres a good example

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Considering whats going on in the world, this is the sort of thread you want to see. But in order to actualy add to it requires you might actualy have to think. But yet a thread like:

ZOMG ALIEN BASE SATAN WORSHIP WHITEHOUSE WAT LOL

gets about 50 pages.

Makes sense.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by Johnze]

It seems like Weekly World News and The Sun turn up way too often. The few articles I've read from NaturalNews have also been loaded with bias and completely distort the actual story. People really need to check their sources and find a source that can corroborate their original source. Instead, most people read an article that confirms their world view and posts it regardless of where it comes from.

Originally posted by JackCash
People of ATS!

Do not quote from:

Infowars
PrisonPlanet
The Onion

Are there any others to add to this list?

The Bible?

I can't make heads or tails of that book.

Anything can be dubbed as an unreliable source by someone who does not believe or support that site. For example Above Top Secret is veiwed by many conservative straight laced americans as too unreliable.
In some cases WIkipedia is unrelaible and other cases it is not. I have read articles on Wikipedia that are 100% true and reliable.
To test if something is reliable a person has to look at his or her own knowledge does it concide with what that person believes? Another way to test validity is to do research on the topic in question on the article.
By doing deeper research when can tell is it is valid.
When I posted a link here on FDRs bill of rights I actually did some research to make sure it was accurate.
I agree people need to do research to make sure it is accurate but at the same time this is a consiparcy THEORY site and theories are unproven.

[edit on 7-7-2010 by dreamseeker]

[edit on 7-7-2010 by dreamseeker]

I certainly understand where your coming from, although just because a website is unreliable and doesn't usually give good information, it may everynow and then have a gem.

Furthermore here on ATS we love to dissect the news and figure out WHY it was written for this purpose, unreliable sources are a GREAT way to figure out why they are lying to us and what kind of sensationalist BS they are currently trying to push.

The only threads I don't read are the ones that link to Sorcha Faal. All others I will read, even if I think it's bunk. Why?

Cause I want to know what the masses are reading, what they are believing. You can't have a quest for truth without digging through the lies first.

~Keeper