Adding Links To One's Threads Doesn't Make Them True

[gab13by13]

Especially when one links right wing sources, like yesterday when a right wing source was cited here that claimed the NYC shooter yelled "Free Palestine."

I saw an article that the shooter was looking for the NFL offices because football gave him CTE. Free Brain Damage. Is this the real truth? I'm not sure.

I choose, a lot, not to link because I want to take responsibility for what I post.

[marble falls]

1. Links are important, if not just to get where the info is coming from, ie: www.fox.com vs www.DNC.com ...

MAGA thrives on unlinked and www.fox.com posting.

[EdmondDantes_]

2. It also lets readers understand the veracity of claims

And gives something to discuss against or for. I'd always rather have a citation, but maybe that's the former grad student in me.

[Justice]

3. Both points have some truth to them

A by-stander was arrested at the scene - said to be yelling “Free Palestine.” I can’t imagine charges will be brought against him, but in the moment, the chaos, probably not unreasonable to detain him.

Also, true shooter left note claiming to have CTE. And most journalists are saying might be that he targeted the NFL offices.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. If you want to take responsibility for what you post...

And your post includes not just opinions, but assertions of fact, then it is imperative to include responsible links that support your assertions.

Otherwise, people may assume you are making things up and spreading misinformation, which has the same effect as the irresponsible links you mentioned in your OP.

[Mossfern]

5. When I want to include a link to verify something

I usually look for the most neutral site so people don't shoot down my claim (whatever it may be) as coming from a biased site.
Sometimes it takes a bit of searching, but it's worth it.

[gab13by13]

13. Make me a list of responsible links

My daytime news comes from listening to freespeechtv.org.

I won't bother clicking on links here that I consider right wing, like The Hill.

I'm not giving clicks to right wing sites, sorry.

If you think I am spreading misinformation I want you to call me out. When someone posts a link or video are we to assume that the poster agrees with everything in the link or video?

There are people on MSNBC who I won't click on and I assume that MSNBC is a reliable site? or is it? The shareholders are BlackRock and Vanguard.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. That is your responsibility, not mine

When you assert something as fact, the burden is upon you to support your assertion with evidence.

If your evidence is flawed or biased, then expect others to challenge you on it (as I have in the past).

I agree with your policy of not linking to right wing sources.

The most important thing to remember when asserting something as fact is, don’t just look at sources that confirm the outcome you wish to see (known as confirmation bias), but look to see if there are other reputable sources that either refute or ignore your assertion (ignoring can be as significant as refuting because it means the news outlet doesn’t consider the story credible enough to report on).

[Ms. Toad]

6. Not including a link isn't taking responsibility for what you say

In effect it turns what you say into no more than unsourced AI. There's no way to fact check what you are saying without completely researching whatever it is. When you provide links, we have the opportunity to determine whether you have correctly interpreted it, and even if correctly interpreted, we have the opportunity to check the veracity of it.

Someone posted an "I heard that XYZ" a few days ago. Please tell me it isn't true." There were virtually no responses, and searching for XYZ turned up nothing - not even where the rumor might have come from. Had the poster said, "DEF said that XYZ," I could have looked at DEF to see if it was a reliable source. I could have determined if it was a direct quote - or a paraphrase. If it was a paraphrase, I could have determined whether the paraphrase was accurate. Having the source also lets me look for other sources which the original misinterpreted - or which later copied it and did more research.

[gab13by13]

14. Send me a list of reliable sources.

[Ocelot II]

20. Do your own homework.

If you make factual assertions to support your opinions, it's up to you to back them up with reliable sources, and it's also up to you to decide whether the sources are reliable.

[Iggo]

7. They only see what they want to see.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. "They"? The all purpose "they" again, but are you referring to posters, readers, journalists, networks, podcasters, DU?

I failed mindreading in high school and was never offered a course in university.

[Iggo]

12. Whoever yelps.

Intent follows the bullet.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. ?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. No links doesn't make it truer. No credible links often means ** speculation **. . . . nt

[Ocelot II]

10. Links don't make a post true *if* the links are to sketchy sources.

But no links at all suggests the poster is either too lazy to cite a source or that they are just making shit up. If you want to take responsibility for your post, show us where you got your information.

[gab13by13]

16. I listened to Thom Hartmann today.

If my memory serves me right, this is what he said to one of his callers.

Are we not allowed to state our opinions here, even if they turn out to be wrong? Half of DU believes that Merrick Garland is responsible for Trump's 2nd term, the other half believes that Garland did everything he could. I can give you 100 reliable links that support my opinion, which opinion is true?

[Ocelot II]

17. You don't need to cite sources for pure opinion, but if your opinion is based on specific information,

you might want to include references to the facts that form the basis of your opinion, at least if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you know what they say about opinions - they're like assholes; everybody's got one. As to Garland specifically, there are credible facts supporting both sides of the question, which suggests that at this point a dead horse is being beaten and there's not much to be gained by continuing an argument that's just devolved into opinion. Seems to me we have bigger fish to fry these days. But that's just my opinion, not worth more or less than anyone else's.

[EdmondDantes_]

18. No you can't because that's an opinion without enough data to prove or disprove

Not every opinion is supported by the facts. Flat earth for example.

The problem with opinions is people aren't nearly as willing to update them based on new information as they should be. If you blindly refuse to read a centrist site like The Hill because you think they are right wing, you are saying you're unwilling to consider anything that might be inconvenient to your perspective or understanding that sources biased in the direction you want to believe might not be entirely objectively accurate in terms of not interpreting or shading things in their own bias.

[Timewas]

11. For me

I will add a link to show my source and allow others to read it and make up their own minds as to the facts as they are stated, also gives readers a chance to post conflicting links that help my perspective as to whether it is factual or not.

[Kaleva]

22. Links are useful for people who want to do more reading on the topic