Like the author could be wrong,partial or just didnt do enough research . Linking an articles isn’t proof that you are right even if it is from trusted sites though most of the time it is from sites like shiteater.com. This is the reasons why i enjoy platforms like lemmy so we can see who is giving false information and multiple answers, opinion etc. Is there a side i am not seeing this from ?
EDIT:Holy shit shiteater.com is a real site WTH.
PS:Don’t use the link i dont know if its safe or anything seems normal.
I’m not really following here tbh. Articles might be wrong and so…. something? Sure simply pasting any old link isn’t inherently proving anything. One would have to assume the link is being provided because the poster thought the content of the article was good.
Chances are, most people wouldn’t know about anything outside of their small circle if it weren’t for articles. The article is just a beginning. The article brings your attention to something. Then it’s your responsibility to research what it says and determine how true it is. I prefer to think of an article as a hypothesis. Usually there are several facts that lead to a hypothesis. The job is then to determine the validity of the facts and see if the hypothesis holds up to further scutiny.
I guess it depends on indeed who the source it.
If it’s data, and you have an official source, there isn’t really much to debate.
I mean, if it’s good data with good analysis. Even then there could still be quite a lot to debate
Got an alternative asides randos on the internet? lulz
Now you are asking alternatives from “randos on the internent” ? lulz
Shiteater.com is safe-ish. It’s a domain that has been parked with an advertising platform.
They confuse witness testimony with cross examination and examination of evidence (the three elements of truth seeking).
Anyone who gives a perspective must, by their nature and role, be questionable.
What trusted sites? If anything, I think people trust well known web sites too much to be correct and unbiased.
True
