When is a Link Not Enough? Questioning the Reliability of Online Sources

[Liquid Reigns]

Just because a link is provided, does that automatically make the information credible? We all know that not everything on the internet is true, yet many people take linked sources at face value, without questioning the reliability of the material itself.

Should you scrutinize the source material behind the links people share, or do you find that most just accept it as fact? Have you ever been in a situation where you provided a link to support your point, only to have it dismissed because of the source? How does one know when they are providing credible evidence and ensuring that evidence is actually trustworthy?

 

[Mungri]

No.

I stand by the individual correctly asserting their points with logic and reason, as many people on this and similar forums can do.

When it comes to sources, most just copy and paste and appeal to authority while learning nothing.

Also the dialectical approach that should follow a criticism or counter argument to defend your assertions - very few people these days can do this, especially on the left. They will just resort to 'everyone that disagrees is racist / hate speech' attacks, because they are fed media soy their whole life and can't actually think for themselves.

Nothing these days can satisfy my enhanced aspie conversational and debate needs, everything is so boring. Oh right, my AI can do it, so much better than humans.

 

[Joe King]

Should you scrutinize the source material behind the links people share,

Absolutely!

It's the substance that matters, not a (possibly) spun headline.

 

[Rebarcock.]

Just because a link is provided, does that automatically make the information credible? We all know that not everything on the internet is true, yet many people take linked sources at face value, without questioning the reliability of the material itself.

Should you scrutinize the source material behind the links people share, or do you find that most just accept it as fact? Have you ever been in a situation where you provided a link to support your point, only to have it dismissed because of the source? How does one know when they are providing credible evidence and ensuring that evidence is actually trustworthy?

If you read it believe it will

 

[TheFiend]

Just because a link is provided, does that automatically make the information credible?

Oh absolutely not at all.

We all know that not everything on the internet is true, yet many people take linked sources at face value, without questioning the reliability of the material itself.

Should you scrutinize the source material behind the links people share, or do you find that most just accept it as fact?

Well, tbh.... I have occasionally deliberately messed with cunts by taking advantage of this hilariously tragic common reality.

Lazily dumping a bunch of "landmines" in whatever bullshit counterarguments I'd challenged theirs with.

It's funny to me coz it's so far beyond depressing realizing how incredibly effective this lazy trick usually is.

Apparently near on every cunt, and I ain't no exception, deep down secretly believe they are all knowing—even whilst knowing it's completely fuckin' absurd.

It's so easily debunked simply by the fact that it is impossible to ever know any other individuals subjective experience.

Therefore proving not one single individual that has existed ever knew sweet butt fuck all.

Even the smartest cunts, the geniuses, the savants & intellectual elitists. It's all relative. They were smart alright, butt only compared to their contemporary dumbasses.

Yet still most fuckers nowadays act otherwise.

Usually being quick witted, academically indoctrinated, experienced, or specifically knowledgeable of some particular thing, while predominantly being no less than obnoxious intellectually lazy shits.

We definitely ought to scrutinize links for sure.
It might be a shock to some if they merely started checking simple shit like, for example: Wikipedia "source" links...lmfao!

Have you ever been in a situation where you provided a link to support your point, only to have it dismissed because of the source? How does one know when they are providing credible evidence and ensuring that evidence is actually trustworthy?

Imo we oughta scrutinize absolutely everything

 

[Mungri]

Oh absolutely not at all.


Well, tbh.... I have occasionally deliberately messed with cunts by taking advantage of this hilariously tragic common reality.

Lazily dumping a bunch of "landmines" in whatever bullshit counterarguments I'd challenged theirs with.

It's funny to me coz it's so far beyond depressing realizing how incredibly effective this lazy trick usually is.

Apparently near on every cunt, and I ain't no exception, deep down secretly believe they are all knowing—even whilst knowing it's completely fuckin' absurd.

It's so easily debunked simply by the fact that it is impossible to ever know any other individuals subjective experience.

Therefore proving not one single individual that has existed ever knew sweet butt fuck all.

Even the smartest cunts, the geniuses, the savants & intellectual elitists. It's all relative. They were smart alright, butt only compared to their contemporary dumbasses.

Yet still most fuckers nowadays act otherwise.

Usually being quick witted, academically indoctrinated, experienced, or specifically knowledgeable of some particular thing, while predominantly being no less than obnoxious intellectually lazy shits.

We definitely ought to scrutinize links for sure.
It might be a shock to some if they merely started checking simple shit like, for example: Wikipedia "source" links...lmfao!


Imo we oughta scrutinize absolutely everything

Scrutinize everything is an aspie thing. If you don't have it, stop trying to become diseased.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Oh absolutely not at all.


Well, tbh.... I have occasionally deliberately messed with cunts by taking advantage of this hilariously tragic common reality.

Lazily dumping a bunch of "landmines" in whatever bullshit counterarguments I'd challenged theirs with.

It's funny to me coz it's so far beyond depressing realizing how incredibly effective this lazy trick usually is.

Apparently near on every cunt, and I ain't no exception, deep down secretly believe they are all knowing—even whilst knowing it's completely fuckin' absurd.

It's so easily debunked simply by the fact that it is impossible to ever know any other individuals subjective experience.

Therefore proving not one single individual that has existed ever knew sweet butt fuck all.

Even the smartest cunts, the geniuses, the savants & intellectual elitists. It's all relative. They were smart alright, butt only compared to their contemporary dumbasses.

Yet still most fuckers nowadays act otherwise.

Usually being quick witted, academically indoctrinated, experienced, or specifically knowledgeable of some particular thing, while predominantly being no less than obnoxious intellectually lazy shits.

We definitely ought to scrutinize links for sure.
It might be a shock to some if they merely started checking simple shit like, for example: Wikipedia "source" links...lmfao!


Imo we oughta scrutinize absolutely everything

It's surprising how many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source. They often quote or link to it without checking the original references that Wikipedia cites. In many cases, what Wikipedia states and what the cited sources actually say can differ, yet people rely on it without question.

When their sources are challenged, they often become defensive, struggling to understand the context or recognizing that the source may be misquoted or biased. Some people even start with a conclusion they want to prove and search for sources that support their views, regardless of accuracy. They assume that if information comes from a member of Congress, it must be correct, or if it's on the internet, it must be true. They fail due to their own biases and ignorance and when pointed out they show just how stupid they truly are.

 

[Joe King]

It's surprising how many people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source.

It's great for some things. Anything non-controversial.

Anything social or political, is biased towards the woke-tard side.