Do you believe writers (in general) who write 'informative' articles without a s

1. 63

   Lanzskieposted 12 years ago

   Do you believe writers (in general) who write 'informative' articles without a solid reference?
   
   This I mean only self-perception but without providing evidences or examples from the past and present articles.

   replyreport
2. 72

   ArtzGirlposted 12 years ago

   We all have to start somewhere.  I suppose that I'm the type of person that values modern day videos and google searches as much as someone who has acquired years of schooling to become certified in their field.  No, I wouldn't go to them for something like surgery, but there are many fields that are showing a lot of major advancements which are unrecognized by leading educational and professional fields.  Case in point, medical doctors in the USA - typically have a limited understanding of nutrition - and rather distribute pharmaceuticals, when changing a patient's diet or supplementing with necessary vitamins and supplements may be just the thing that could serve as the solution or "cure".  More and more I'm finding a strength in googled information.  This, in and of itself, is a huge advancement!

   replyreport
3. 64

   Lisa HWposted 12 years ago

   It depends on what the person says and how they present it.
   
   There are articles people write that are the type you describe - articles that offer evidence/examples from other articles.  I may (if I read one of those at all) believe what the author of one of those says because it's clear he's saying what someone else with more authority has already said.  I have little interest in that kind of "informative" article, though, because if I want information I'd rather get it from the authority who wrote the referenced material, rather than from someone who just regurgitates what an authority has said but who may know little about the subject or, in fact, not even know enough about it to know WHICH reference sources are solid.
   
   As for people who write "from their own head", it's usually easy to detect the stuff that's written from someone's own ideas but has nothing behind it to back it up.  That's the stuff people often write as if they're experts (often because they're too insecure to just write in the first person), but as you read it you'll see that they offer no explanation as to where any personal experience, personal reading, reasoning based on a combination of both, etc. etc. factored into the ideas/information presented.
   
   There is such a thing as a person who knows his subject very well.  Maybe it's their hobby.  Maybe it's something they've done a lot of reading on.  People like that, though, will usually say enough in what they've written to make it clear that they know what they're talking about.  Also, if a reader were to give a quick look to some other sources that reader would see that what the person has said is not in conflict with "authorities" with "official credentials" says.
   
   Personal experiences teach people things that "the books" don't cover.  Someone who is not young is likely to have learned things that mean they know their subject.  Someone who has had a lot of relationships/discussions with a lot of people may be more familiar with a subject.  People who have done a lot of research for previous writing, and people who know their subject because they've done a lot of reading on it, can very much know what they're talking about.  People who can explain what reasoning has gone into their own conclusions, and who have had more than just their own thoughts as input for that reasoning, can know what they're talking about.
   
   So for me, it depends on what is said, who says it, and whether there seems t be solid "checkable" substance.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Lanzskieposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You've explained it very well indeed. I too agree  pretty much everything really! Thanks for this.

      replyreport
4. 59

   Paul Maplesdenposted 12 years ago

   As Lisa has said, it all depends on how the person writes.
   
   For example, I write informative and how to hubs based mostly on my own experience, observation and experimentation. I don't often cite 'official' sources, but do believe that my writing offers practical advice and value, because I've been able to objectively see results based on my methods.
   
   It might be that adding an official source would increase credibility in my work, but ultimately if people are writing on a subject they are familiar with, have an interesting approach, provide useful, practical information and leave the reader with something of value, I don't think that official sources are necessary.
   
   Of course, on the other side, writers can cite all sorts of official sources, but if their hubs aren't well written, engaging or relevant, people won't necessarily read or trust them.

   replyreport