I don't make stuff up and write about it...

1. 0

   Scott P Williamsposted 9 years ago

   I got some comments offline about several hubs but especially the "Fake News" hub. I definitely don't site my sources the way I should because most of my topics are so well established and known that the sources are usually wide and deep . Anyhow, long story short. Here is an example of some "Fake News" that is happening right now: (Our Gov set up a fake twitter like service in Cuba to try and start a revolution or something like that against the gov there.   http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/ … ce-failed/     
   
   I write about stuff like this in my hubs and people think I make it up or that I'm following conspiracy theories.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      SpaceShantyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You have to remember that not everyone is as aware of current events as you or even reads newspapers so what you might consider widely understood may not be.  Cutting and pasting a link from a well known newsite only takes a second and will stop you having to deal with the negative comments.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      sheilamyersposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Part of the reason for the negative responses is as SpaceShanty said - some people aren't up to date with current affairs. Even if they are, they may not be hearing both sides of the story, so mentioning a few sources would give them a chance to do a little more research. Still other people read what you have to say and because they don't like it they'd rather take the easy way out by saying you're lying or making things up then to provide actual facts to refute what you have to say.

      replyreport
      1. 41

         ChristinSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         This! totally...

         replyreport
2. 41

   ChristinSposted 9 years ago

   Most people are able to cite sources that back up their assertions - if not, it makes it appear you are not really doing research per se, but stating a strongly formed opinion.  I'm not saying that you are or aren't doing that - just how it might appear. 
   
   When I look for information, I am more inclined to listen if other credible sources corroborate the information - be it political topics or otherwise.

   replyreport
3. 66

   awareposted 9 years ago

   reliable news sources?  lol

   replyreport
4. 0

   Scott P Williamsposted 9 years ago

   First of all, thanks for your responses Aware, SpaceShanty and ChristinS. But Aware makes the perfect point. He or She says "reliable news sources? lol"   What do you do when ABC, CBS and NBC ignore a major issue. I guess Forbes is not reliable enough. (Unless you want to create a fortune in the business world that is.) Most people wake up when they witness an event with there own eyes and then see the MSM turn the story around. A good topic to research is American Wars. When you see the actual documented information of how America has gotten involved in every war, you will never look at things the same. Just like the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie a few years back, every war has a similar lie that is told to the people in order to get their approval and all the newspapers of those various times actually covered the stories and told the truth. I would have to write a book to document all this type of stuff and then fight with people because all the sources are not main stream.
   
   Anyway, I know that any good writer documents from a "reliable news source" but our MSM isn't trustworthy anymore. Not if you want anything close to the truth.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      SpaceShantyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wikipedia is probably a good source, I agree all major news corps. are biased.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         relacheposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         *facepalm*

         replyreport
         1. 92

            SpaceShantyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Explain

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               My kids are not allowed to use Wiki for schoolwork as it is known to be unreliable.
               
               http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/edu … pedia.html

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Patty Inglish, MSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  The Ohio State University leadership does not allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference in any class on their campuses anywhere in Ohio, because of the lack of reliability and lack of professional peer review. This is stated up front in classes and if Wikipedia is used anyway, academic discipline is issued. In addition, no middle school or high school in Central Ohio counties will allow its use, either.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah. It's like alcohol. It's fine for adults, but inappropriate for children.

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Patty Inglish, MSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I use some of the images from Wikimedia Commons but not text; and, I look at references at the end of some articles.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           I use it to increase my knowledge as opposed to paying for any more higher learning.

                           replyreport
                  2. 80

                     tsmogposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Wow Patty! Thank you . . . I will not lean on it as much for hubs now. I usually only offer vague or broad quotes from it from the biographical perspective of someone in the past. I do like Wikipedia for the bibliographies offered at many of the articles. I use those more than the article for researching. A quick look up rather than searching the browser. Wikipedia commons is my main source for images since it is free and pretty diverse with new and old images. Flikr and others seem to be more old images in their commons.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        Marisa Wrightposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Have you ever looked at Wikipedia's entry for a subject you know something about?   That's what turned me off Wikipedia as a reference source - their entries on belly dance and flamenco were both absolute shockers.   I try to keep an eye on them now, but every now and then they still get edited by someone who's swallowed all the popular myths and dumps them all into the entries.  It made me realise - if those two entries are SO inaccurate, what is the rest like? 
                        
                        The other thing to consider about using Wikipedia:  if you were reading an article on something, and the author referred you to Wikipedia, what impression would that give you?   Have you ever read an article by an expert in their field, who used Wikipedia as a reference?  No - experts always have better sources, specific to their field, to call upon.  So using Wikipedia can make you look like an amateur.
                        
                        As for Wikimedia Commons - be careful there too.   Many of the images do require attribution, and the conditions can be quite specific.  Make sure you read them carefully and click on any links telling you what to do.   If the image is from Flickr, follow the link to Flickr and make sure it really is Some Rights Reserved - there are Wikipedia writers who upload stuff from Flickr without understanding the rules.

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           Patty Inglish, MSposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           +1

                           replyreport
               2. 78

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  It changes with the prevailing winds of what people think is true.  Your school is right.

                  replyreport
5. 66

   awareposted 9 years ago

   Scott thank you

   replyreport
6. 41

   ChristinSposted 9 years ago

   Where did I say use our mainstream media? There are plenty of reliable (and yes, they can be non US) sources to corroborate information and it doesn't have to be mainstream media either.  My only point was that you appear more credible when you cite sources - be it books, journals, video etc.  I trust almost none of what I hear on mainstream media lol.

   replyreport
7. 63

   Lisa HWposted 9 years ago

   I don't write news (real, fake or otherwise) Hubs; but one problem I've run into with people looking for references is sometimes that there's someone like a fresh-out-school twenty-something who is still interested in things like video games (or whatever) and whose only experience with writing has been in school (where citing sources is part of the deal for school stuff).
   
   With SOME other types of writing, though, the general thing is that if it's something that "everybody knows" (or "most everybody knows") there's no need to cite a source (and the fact is that sometimes the information has just kind of "always been out there" for quite some time, but people not interested in it haven't been paying attention).
   
   So, you have your fifty-something writer write without offering a resource that makes the twenty-something feel better about what he's reading; and twenty-something  person is thinking the writer pulled a statement/information off the top of his head.
   
   (Then again, I've seen the reverse, but it doesn't make the writer look as bad:     A writer will write something from assimilated knowledge that's based in well established, well known, fact (but not in research specifically done for the article), and some person will comment and say, "good research"        Sometimes there's no winning - particularly on a site like this where there's some flexibility with regard to types of material people write).
   
   (Of course, I've also had the accusation that I was "all academic and out of touch and had never had any experience with the subject in my own life.  I guess that person didn't know that some people use slightly more formal English grammar than others do, whether or not they're "all academic".) 
   
   It's the old "you're-not-going-please-everyone" thing - especially on a site like this one where there's such a big mix of writers AND people reading (and judging).

   replyreport
8. 81

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   Bottom line: what you consider a "fact" you got from somewhere.  If you do not say where, we don't know if you got it from a reliable source, an unreliable source, or the pixie that lives in your toilet.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Beth37posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What an unfortunate pixie.

      replyreport
9. 0

   Scott P Williamsposted 9 years ago

   Thanks again to everybody joining the discussion.
   
   Bottom line is I do know that I need to cite my sources. But I was hoping that in 2014 we didn't need to explain why Big Banks, Big Oil or Big Pharma companies are not trustworthy. However, good writing skills will never change. I have to do it!
   I do read wiki many times but even I knew that a source that allows changes on the fly isn't considered reliable. But wiki is a good source just to get some general info...

   replyreport
   1. 81

      psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It rather depends on what you are trusting them to do.  Big pharma has its down sides--but their inventions also twice saved my life. So I am not going to just believe any given good or bad rumor about any given pharmaceutical company.  I am going to expect evidence for every claim a person makes, good or bad, like any normal thinking adult.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Scott P Williamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         This is true!

         replyreport
10. 66

    conradofontanillaposted 9 years ago

    Sometimes I use wiki image of a subject I already know, like aloe vera. It is for convenience because I have not taken a photo myself or not another one is available for free. Also I look at text in wiki as some clue. I have to verify that clue in some other website or reference.
    I cite references to acknowledge my debt to the originator or link, to enable the reader (be s/he layman or expert) to verify what I have written, especially on matters of fact.

    replyreport