How to Identify Bogus Sources before Posting on DU...

[MineralMan]

Before you copy and paste some amazing story from that website, it's a really good idea to actually read the entire article. Sometimes, there are clues that an article on a site isn't, perhaps, 100% reliable. Here are some things to look for:

1. The article is an alarming story about a health threat. At the bottom of the article is a link to another site that is selling a product that claims to protect you from this threat. This is a good example of a conflict of interest that clouds the accuracy of the material in the article.

2. The article is claiming that there is a global conspiracy of corporate and government leaders. This conspiracy threatens your very existence. At the bottom of the article is a link to a company selling gold as a hedge against economic collapse. Again, a conflict of interest issue clouds the truthfulness of the article.

Conflicts of interest in articles on websites should be a red flag, sending you off to do further research to see whether there is any actual truth in the material. Often, you'll find that the questionable article is pieced together from fragments and has the goal of selling you a product, rather than informing you. If you find actual corroboration at a legitimate source that is NOT trying to sell you something within the article, then post from that source, not the questionable one.

Thanks for reading.

[tekisui]

1. I don't know how DU would survive without your guidance.

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks. I appreciate your endorsement.

:hug:

[Sal Minella]

6. Your snideness is duly noted.

Personally, I appreciate anything that cuts down on some of the crap posted on DU.

[SidDithers]

2. K&R...

good advice. But will fall mostly on deaf ears, I'm afraid.

Sid

[dionysus]

20. vaht? was you... vhat?

[villager]

3. What about the conflicts of interest from mainstream media with corporate advertisers...

...who they ultimately can't afford to "offend?"

[MineralMan]

9. It's important to weigh everything. Multiple sources are the best

way to check things. I'm talking about open conflicts of interest, within website articles. Those are clearly a red flag. There is a difference. But, yes, you should question everything and do more research on important issues.

[villager]

18. Fair enough. Multiple sources can often be disparate, as well

...but in age of such tightly controlled information from our "free press" and our "open government," I agree that multiple sources are often needed for even a nascent glimpse at "the truth..."

[MineralMan]

28. It's always a problem. We have to rely on third parties for information

about things we're not experiencing for ourselves. Often, though, we don't know those third parties or their motivations. Generally, I try to find multiple sources that are offering the same information. When that happens, and I've chosen sources that have a decent reputation for accuracy, I can usually rely on the information.

The more complex the issue, the more difficult it seems to be to find actual information, rather than opinion about that information. That's the tough nut to crack.

[raccoon]

4. Thanks for posting. nt

[quinnox]

7. no condescending tone in the OP

The next article will instruct us on how to type web addresses into our browser no doubt.

[MineralMan]

10. I'd be happy to write that. Do you think it's needed?

Thanks for your reply.

[quinnox]

17. No, I was kidding (obviously)

You always come up with these threads about how you think people should post on DU, and I think the mods can handle it without someone trying to do their job for them!

[emulatorloo]

22. I've seen lots of "articles" posted on DU from wack-job conspiracy sites

as if they were the gospel truth.

I don't think it is a bad idea for us to think about investigating our sources a little before posting some of the dumbass shit out there.

[sabrina 1]

39. Mostly I've seen excellent sources posted by DUers on DU.

Could you point to some of these 'wack-job' conspiracy sites that are posted so often we need instructions on how to recognize them?

I think the mods do a good job of sorting out anything that is questionable and I basically trust that DUers are smart enough to do so themselves. But that's me, I guess I have more faith in DUers, even those I disagree with sometimes.

[catabryna]

25. Actually, the OP is asking people to use their critical thinking skills

before posting. You know, that skill that DU decries as being absent in much of society.

[MineralMan]

27. I'm sure the moderators can do that. On the other hand,

you appear to be suggesting that I not post suggestions. Perhaps the moderators can handle that, as well. You're welcome to ignore any of my posts if you don't find them useful.

[RZM]

12. I think it's useful advice

Scams are designed to be tricky. Sometimes it helps to have a little guidance about how they work.

[Scuba]

8. Good advice for the tiny handful that need it....

...I find most DUers, like liberals in general, understand critical thinking, empiracle evidence and conflict of interest.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes. It's not aimed at the majority of DUers.

Thanks.

[Scuba]

13. I agree that some younger and other members need the lesson....

...we should probably have a forum on "how to argue effectively".

[Sinistrous]

49. Some of them just don't spell very well...

[Scuba]

50. Me enclooded.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. I disagree.. I find it educational

and I say this as someone who has had an OP picked apart by smart DU'ers. :P

[LiberalFighter]

34. And it is always a good reminder of what is needed to be done.

[HopeHoops]

15. If the URL begins with "http://www.theonion.com", you can sort of take that as a clue.

Apparently FOX Noise hasn't figured that out.

[XemaSab]

16. I have another one:

4) The article is written as a press release in order to get you to invest in something.

Example: "Mexican corn production has doubled in the last two years, reports Monsanto in the latest issue of Business Week."

These can be tricky to ferret out.

[apnu]

19. Nice! (nt)

[pipi_k]

21. Don't understand why...

some are being so snotty about this.

Unless they've done it and are feeling defensive... :shrug:



But anyway, I would think people would appreciate advice that would help them avoid embarrassment somewhere down the line when a link or source they cite turns out to be bogus.

I know I would.

[emulatorloo]

23. + 1

[HipChick]

24. K&R!

[theophilus]

26. You're taking all the FUN out of DU. We'll post, YOU decide!

Besides, you won't have anything to do if you can't point our "bogus sources".

[Ohio Joe]

29. The problem is...

It doesn't matter if someone want to push the evils of vaccines or whatever their personal favorite CT non-sense might be, they will use any source that agrees with them. It doesn't matter if the site is hawking snake oil... It doesn't matter if the site is run by a right wing nut case... It doesn't matter if the site uses really bad science or even no science at all, evidence is always optional. The important thing is that they found a page on the web that agrees with their non-sense and that will always make it a viable source for them.

[Lionessa]

30. EXCEPT for one major problem...

Ad services that place many of those links on and around an article, have no connection to the articles AT ALL! They are simply being presented due to some keywords in the article. So only if the links you suggest are part of the article would I agree with you.

Is that what you meant to say, by saying "at the bottom of the article," are you intending to say in the body of the article? Because some ads at the bottom after an article have nothing to do with the article.

Otherwise DU itself would look like the nutty place with some of the ads I've seen here in the past, as well as read others complain about.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes. In the body of the article. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Of course many websites include ads, many of which are placed on the site automatically. That's a different issue.

[kristopher]

31. As described you are giving bad advice. Advertising is placed by algorithms.

I've seen the kind of articles you are talking about where the writing is a lead in to a sales pitch, but your OP fails to distinguish between that and normal advertising that is placed by the topic covered on the hosting site.

Unrec.

[MineralMan]

32. In the examples I gave, the link to the selling site was in the

actual content of the article, not in a hosted ad. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

[kristopher]

37. Learning how to determine the validity of sources is very important.

I, for one, do appreciate your effort even if the execution left a bit to be desired.

[Peacetrain]

35. Thanks MM.. I look for all the help and advice I can get to sift through

everything we are bombarded with daily on the internet. K&R

[Odin2005]

36. I get ticked off when someone posts yet another dumb NaturalNews screed.

[MineralMan]

41. That's one of the sources we see here a lot, I'm afraid.

I realize that there's a lot of interest in alternative health stuff, but that site is exceptionally blatant about self-promoting articles that lack a solid foundation. Much of its content is written by people with products to sell, and that's always a red flag. The HuffPo Health area was another that allowd blatant pandering by people trying to profit from posts there. That was one of the reasons I stopped visiting the site altogether. It smacked way too much of a mercenary approach to the news, and caused me to lack faith in anything posted there.

Generally, advocacy sites are poor sources of information, I think. If a site takes a particular position on just about any subject, it's unlikely that you'll find a balanced approach in its content. Even if I agree with a site's position, I go looking elsewhere if I want to post something here on DU.

[ecstatic]

38. Also, when your article is debunked, apologize and correct the record!

Instead of slinking away into the night looking for the next hit piece to post.

[JuniperLea]

40. Or worse still...

Hammer away at some obscure reason you were right... sorta like Palin apologists trying to squeeze some convoluted "truth" out of her failure to remember 1st grade history.

[Scuba]

51. Only a self-confident person can apolgize with any humility. It's very hard for some....

...but extremely therapeutic.

[bvar22]

42. Do you have a link to substiantiate the claims made in your OP?

I would like to evaluate whether they are bogus.
Thanks!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
/joke

[Kaleva]

46. If it's posted, it must be true!

[MineralMan]

48. Sorry. I don't.

They're descriptive examples of things I've seen on DU more than once. I wish I could help you further.

[girl gone mad]

43. Thank you, board nanny!

[MineralMan]

44. Well, you're very welcome.

Thanks for reading.

[Kaleva]

45. At the J/K forum, a member posted an article about the Army signing up 14 year olds

The site that had the article had a link to the another site where it got the story. And that site contained a link to another. Finally, I got to a website which had a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying the article was written by a member of the staff as an April Fools joke.

The story should have raised red flags right off but a number of members were convinced it was true simply because it posted at a radical left website.

[MineralMan]

47. It can be hard to run down the original source of some articles.

You're right. Sometimes the links all lead to circular references, based on the same erroneous stuff. It can be a real challenge at times.

[Scuba]

52. That's called the "Murdoch Circle Jerk"...

As heard on Fox News: The Wall Street Journal reported today that the New York Times said Democrats are all traitors to America...

[Spike89]

53. Not so helpful anymore with Google Ads

I am in agreement with your goal and really have no problem with the way you put it out there. However, I don't think it is a useful tip any more with most Web advertising becoming semi-intelligent...i.e., if you write an article about headache remedies, Google is likely to slide a pain reliever ad into the ad placeholder at the bottom of the page. It may look like a conflict of interest, but it is automatic and after-the-fact.