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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia is probably a good source, I agree all major news corps. are biased.
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
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.
Yeah. It's like alcohol. It's fine for adults, but inappropriate for children.
I use some of the images from Wikimedia Commons but not text; and, I look at references at the end of some articles.
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.
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.
It changes with the prevailing winds of what people think is true. Your school is right.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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.
by agusfanani 5 years ago
Is Wikipedia reliable and accurate as a source of information ?
by Hui (蕙) 6 years ago
Do you all believe Wikipedia?
by Sarah C Nason 5 years ago
Why do people keep using biased mainstream media as their only news source?News channels such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc are clearly biased and don't give all the information, yet I know countless people that use those as their only news source(s). If people actually went to other news sources, such...
by Melanie Palen 6 years ago
Let's say you see an article on someone's blog and website and they've got good information, but their entire article is extremely poorly structured, poorly worded, and just a gloppy mess.You could easily take the information they present and present it in a totally new way essentially entirely...
by irmisol 4 years ago
Authors should be free to write about alternative medical treatments that they personally found useful for a minor ailment, but claiming a recipe cures all forms of stage 4 cancer, or any other serious terminal illness, is unethical. Especially if the hub is plugging a book with the same unsound...
by Earl Noah Bernsby 4 years ago
Hello everyone!I wanted to gauge the Community's opinion on this matter. If you consider yourself to be successful as a freelance writer (or are hoping to become successful as a freelancer), then please feel free to share your thoughts on whether or not you believe that it is necessary to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|