Internet "citations"

[bunny]

I just wondered if anyone else shares my distaste for links people sometimes post here in support of various arguments? Actually, to word it more constructively, I am wondering how those of you who value them decide which are the good ones?

I know I am an old man (I remember when personal computers didnt even exist!) but I much prefer people quoting a written work.

In case this seems like an uninformed bias let me give an example (to show that my biases are all well-informed /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

When you do an internet search on "Vaccination" or some such you get pages and pages telling you of the evils of vaccination, how unnecessary it is, yada yada yada. The point is that the people who know it works, who have seen the evidence first hand, cant be bothered putting up a webpage to persuade you - it's scientifically obvious. There are a bunch of crackpots though with a pet theory and tons of spare time who can make anything look good. With some of the bigger topics, they can cross-post, cite each other, all with no peer-review process.

Any tips? Am I just so last-century? *sniff*

[godBoy]

I agree, you can find something on any topic affirming the belief you already have. Most people use google to prove them selves right and not to actively seek truth. I prefer to relate an issue or question to personal experience because I think they are the most accurate/real and revealing.

I also understand that the people around the world have already questioned the things I have, nothing's new. You can always research - but it's easy to come up with biased results. Google's your friend if you want to find out something new, not if you've already made your mind up.

[madnak]

It depends on the standard of evidence I'm looking for. If someone says that it's "controversial" whether such-and-such I'll usually be satisfied with a single official-looking site.

If, on the other hand, someone is putting a proposition forward as being "established," then I do a few things. I follow the link. Then I do some simple research on the author/publication. Then I google/wikipedia/E2 the subject matter. Then I look for alternative viewpoints and observe their criticisms.

At that point I believe I have a very solid understanding.

Trusting any single source alone is foolish IMO. If anything the internet has led to more rigorous standards. Online it's clear to most people that many varying sources are necessary to get an accurate view of the situation. Even encyclopedias and academic journals have unacceptable margins of error.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on the standard of evidence I'm looking for. If someone says that it's "controversial" whether such-and-such I'll usually be satisfied with a single official-looking site.

If, on the other hand, someone is putting a proposition forward as being "established," then I do a few things. I follow the link. Then I do some simple research on the author/publication. Then I google/wikipedia/E2 the subject matter. Then I look for alternative viewpoints and observe their criticisms.

At that point I believe I have a very solid understanding.

Trusting any single source alone is foolish IMO. If anything the internet has led to more rigorous standards. Online it's clear to most people that many varying sources are necessary to get an accurate view of the situation. Even encyclopedias and academic journals have unacceptable margins of error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I just am too old. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I still prefer looking it up in an academic journal - at least I know it's been checked by a bunch of clever people, even if they make the odd mistake. Internet research always leaves me feeling on shaky grounds.

[guesswest]

I think 'internet' is way too general a term - it covers the sizable majority of written information in the world.

It just comes down to how reliable a particular online source is. With a University research center website ranking as more reliable than a whacko with tin foil hat conspiracy theory homepage, for example.

In any event, the 'encyclopedias and academic journals' mentioned are mostly all available online anyway, so 'internet' encompasses them.

[Darryl_P]

/\
!!
!!
!!
!!

I second that.

[CORed]

Some of what you find on the internet is from academic sources. Some is from government agencies, some is from Joe Blows free site on Tripod. You have to consider the source. However, this is also true of anything you may read in a book, magazine article or newspapaer article. It's true that the signal to noise ratio is lower on the Internet. If I believe that the white trails behind airplanes are not condensed moisture, but toxic chemicals being sprayed by the government for some nefarious purpose, I can find "evidence" to support it on the internet. (I'm not making this up, BTW, Google "chemtrails" if you want to see stuff thats hysterically funny, until you realize that people acutally believe it, at which point it becomes really sad. So, when you are looking for information on the internet, consider the source, and keep your BS detector on "high".

[phiphika1453]

I dont think the type of print should affect the reliability of a source, BUT as a disclaimer there are more NON-credible authors that publish their works online than in 'print' journals.

In this case I think the source of the article should still be taken into account. For example, if a highly regarded chemist post articles on his personal website which have yet to be published I dont know that they should be thrown out soley on the fact that they dont exist in a hardbound journal.

As a safety precaution I believe it is always best to use works published in a reputable journal, but I wouldnt immediately dismiss an online article as long as the source is credible.

My best advice, CONSIDER THE SOURCE, whether it be online or in print.