User:RM395/Course/Week 06

You've probably heard many somewhat similar explanations for what constitutes a "reliable source" when it comes to writing research papers, doing school projects, editing a newspaper, and other activities that require similar standards. What about the rest of the time? How do you determine the level of credibility your friend might have when she's explaining something to you over coffee? What sorts of things do you go by when evaluating information--aside from the factual content of the information itself? Does what you look for vary based on subject? Based on situation? Based on...? You don't need to answer all of these questions individually--just think about the ways you determine "reliable sources" in other contexts.

Lifestyle and Experience

There are two main things that I take into account when I'm deciding whether my friend is a reliable source, especially when it comes to taking advice. The first of those things is lifestyle, and by that I mean does this person live a lifestyle that I respect and would want to emulate? If not, I'm not likely to consider their advice reliable. The other thing is experience, does this person have experience in the subject at hand? For example, if I am struggling in my relationship, I'm much less likely to take advice from my friend who has never been in a relationship. If someone has experience in the subject at hand, and they handled that experience in a way that I consider to be respectable and worth emulating then I will consider that person to be a reliable source.--Mdcoope3 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 04:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your point about lifestyle making a difference is similar to mine about portrayal. If they appear to be a trustworthy person, whether they actually are or not, seems to be the most important. This is probably not a good thing, but I agree with you that appearance and how someone carries themselves is an important factor. Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting how you pick lifestyle as something to judge someone's accuracy in what they say. I guess I would question whether or not wanting to emulate their life is important for believing what they say. Some clarification on that would be useful, for example I am a computer scientist and I like to program, maybe you don't like to program and have no aspirations to do so and therefore wouldn't want to emulate my lifestyle. Does that make my advice less reliable?--MartellRedViper (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Credentials and Portrayal

When I'm talking to a friend or colleague about a topic, there are usually 2 things that determine my level of trust towards their answers: credentials and portrayal. If I know that the person I'm speaking to about chemistry is in or has taken organic chemistry recently, I will trust them more than someone who hasn't. These "credentials" don't necessarily have to be degrees or classes though. It could be as simple as whether or not they have researched a topic. For instance, if I want to know what Angelina Jolie's kids' names are and they say they just read them in a magazine, I am more likely to trust them. This, I suppose, also goes into having sources to back up their claims. Also, portrayal becomes a factor (though this one is a tricky one to decide whether it matters or not). If I ask someone what 2x4 is and they say "8, right?", I am less likely to trust them than if they say a defiant "8." If they seem sure of themselves, it also leads me to be confident in them. Again, this is not necessarily a good thing, but when I thought about this question, it is what came to mind. Kslinker5493 (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on this topic is similar. Confident people definitely make a more convincing sounding argument. Someone that I know has more experience or relevant knowledge on a particular topic is much more of a reliable source. Although there are a few people who if I did not know much about the topic in question, would probably believe what they tell me if what they say makes sense. This is usually a safe bet since they are usually reliable in general.--Jeflicki (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Language and grammar

I look at grammar, spelling and language choice when I judge the reliability of a source. If the source is something in text form, I am much more likely to distrust it if there are spelling or grammar errors. To me, these errors say that the author is too lazy to reread his or her work, the author does not have any sort of editor or peer reviewer, or the author is simply lacking a few points in the intelligence category. If the source is spoken, I mainly look at word choice and a little grammar. If people use words incorrectly or do not conjugate words correctly, I seriously doubt their credibility and reliability. I am most certainly not the smartest person in the world (nor will I ever be, sadly), so if I can find mistakes in a sources's writing or language, it definitely makes me question its validity.--Eems.p (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I also look at grammar and spelling. However, sometimes it's not enough. For example, there was a debate I had with my friend about laptop batteries. She thought that keeping it charged constantly is good for the battery. I on the other hand thought that it's necessary to occasionally drain the battery and charge it rather than keeping it at 100% all the time. In the end we both found articles that had opposing opinions. Her article said it was good to keep it plugged in, while mine said it was good to drain and charge. Both were written pretty well, however, on her article there were so many people arguing from personal experience that keeping the battery constantly at full charge actually wore out their batteries much faster, to the point where it could barely hold any charge on it when unplugged. In the end, it was decided that my article was more reliable. --MangoDango (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I tend to look at language and grammar as a judge of reliability, too, but I don't think that's actually fair or right. One's ability to communicate in the standard dialect via writing or speaking does not necessarily reflect one's expertise in any particular area (except perhaps language competence). In spite of that, an appropriate use of language does indicate a certain degree of intelligence, even if that intelligence doesn't translate into expertise or reliability.Luna002 (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that language and grammar are important even though they don't necessarily go hand and hand with your actual knowledge of a subject. You simply aren't going to believe someone who is stumbling over words. This goes back to the whole confidence issue. If someone doesn't appear to know what they're talking about, it is hard to believe them. Kslinker5493 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

While grammar doesn't entirely make up for actual comprehensive competence and proper researched knowledge, I do agree that I find myself hard-pressed to take anyone seriously when they can't form a decent sentence in what the type. Misspellings and major grammatical errors rather stand out (e.g. your/you're, definitely/defiantly, etc). --Seannator (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Experience

When I want to know the answer to a question I have, I ask the person whom I think has the most knowledge on the subject. If I have a question about something hunting related, I'll ask my dad. I consider him credible when talking about things outdoor related because he has hunted his whole life and he's also a hunter safety instructor. I wouldn't ask him a question about celebrities because he doesn't have any "experience" with pop culture. However, if I'm just talking with my friends, I pay attention to inflection in order to tell if they are credible or not. Rebaduck (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I do! Judging based on interests usually pans out pretty well too. I think judging based on that rather than say, degree experience or anything else makes interest credibility pretty accurate.--Tabbboooo (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree: experience is the most important variable when determining credibility in "real-life." If I'm meeting a friend for coffee and if she starts discussing a topic as fact, I'm going to definitely factor in how much experience she has in that particular subject. For example, she may start talking about Victorian history. While she's not a credentialed expert in the subject, she has done a lot of research. So I'd be more inclined consider her more credible on the subject than others. --Katerwaul (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying. When I want ti know the answer to a question I have, it is best to talk to a person of experience and who has a great knowledge of the information at hand. That is what I call a reliable source because it serves as the blueprint for the foundation of credibility. When addressing information such as sports racing, I will ask my friend Tommy to give me some contextual background about sports racing so that I can get a general idea. I won't turn to any other source or confine in any social media interaction if I have the "hook up" and know actually somebody that is credible in giving me a through explanation about the subject at hand. --Isaiahgee (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ideological Orientation

On many topics, I will consider the source's ideological orientation when evaluating its reliability. I write about controversial topics like energy, the environment, and climate change, and in such areas the partisan bias of a source will affect what arguments and evidence it presents and how it makes inferences from those. That applies to publications and online articles. So I might consult references from both Greenpeace and the Heartland Institute in the same article, but in using the resources, I need to keep in mind that both of these organizations have their biases and political agendas.

The same applies in listening to my friends. I have one Facebook friend who is a flaming lefty Marxist atheist English professor who used to consistently beat me in chess in high school. I have another Facebook friend who is a curmudgeonly right-wing free-market fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant writer for whom I have had the dubious honor of acting as editor. You can imagine that I carefully consider each of their biases when I read articles they post on Facebook. Both have presented interesting and useful resources, but it helps to evaluate them with the poster's political orientation in mind. I'm politically neutral, but overall I tend to trust the pinko atheist English professor rather than the jingoist Protestant writer. This is because of past experience: In the case of these two characters, I have found that the left-wing professor has been more evenhanded than the right-wing writer and less likely to present deceptive misinformation.--Brodmont (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that ideological loyalty can skew someone's "concrete facts." Even if people believes with absolute certainly what they're saying, the slightest disagreement in definition or opinion between two sources can lead to a huge disagreement. Since intellectual property is such a huge issue today, consider the case of Kim Dotcom. The federal government's seizure of Megaupload is often deemed a criminal act in itself. Other people will report the same instance in a completely different way. They see Dotcom as the criminal whose property (allegedly acquired by illegal means) is being confiscated and returned to its rightful owners. This is only one case in which a single fact can be interpreted in two ways due to ideology. --Information-01152001 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Personality, Interests, & Confidence Level

For me, personality, interests & confidence level determine credibility, in most situations. I judge credibility personality wise by thinking of someone's demeanor. Do they always act like they know it all or are they passionate about certain subjects? Have I known them to BS other people or myself? Do they read or research a lot? I judge credibility based on interests depending on the situation and subject matter. I find credibility in people who have certain interests that are closely linked to the issue in question. Yes, there are people who know random things, but as a whole, I tend to trust those who have gotten their feet pretty wet with the subject matter I am exploring over those who have no experience with it or minimal experience. The last thing I judge credibility by is confidence level, which is pretty self explanatory. I take the tone of voice, the hesitation, and the overall manner of communicating into considering their confidence level. I usually find these three components to be pretty good judges of credibility.--Tabbboooo (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that normal this is an excellent way to determine whether or not someone is accurate. I do have this one friend who is very intelligent and knows a lot of things and is confident in everything he says. The downside to this is that he is also very opinionated and can sometimes be wrong but when he talks he always believes he is right and will always try to make you agree with him. So I've learned from him that judging solely from confidence can be a bit shaky.--MartellRedViper (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Person & Experience

When I am determining the credibility of what someone is telling me, I usually take into account who the person is as well as how experienced I believe the person is on what they are saying. If I am seeking information about a computer product at a store, I would be more inclined to treat a tech expert's information more credibly than a random passerby. This applies in any situation where the person's profession is what they are giving information on because usually you have to be fairly educated on what you do everyday. In regards to experience, I am more likely to trust information coming from someone who I regard as experienced in a particular topic. For instance, if a friend has taken a class that I am going to take I would be more likely to believe the information that they give me than someone who has not taken the class. People can sound very convincing when giving information, even when they are not sure that it is factual. For me it is important to take into account who the person is and the level of experience they have on the subject in order to determine whether or not they are a credible source.--Ryenocerous (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I find that when I am talking to a person about a subject I first look at who they are. If I know that person has a biased stance on the thing they are talking about, I wont take what they are saying as entirely credible. When someone sites a fact or in a discussion I usually ask where they heard it from. If it is from a reliable source I will take what they are saying as more credible. The second thing I would look at would be the persons experience. If the person I am talking to works in the field they are talking about I will trust what they are saying more than if they had zero experience in the field. I would also judge information given to me by my past experiences with the person. If that person has given me reliable information in the past I will be more likely to trust them in the future.--Youngpenn (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely where I feel I am at on this topic. It is very important to take into account who the person is talking to you over coffee. I have a friend who is over-the-top with his sarcasm. Let's say I ask him, "Bro, my girl is really giving me some trouble lately, what do you think I should do?" He would then say something along the lines of "You should probably shoot her." Obviously he isn't the person I would go to for dating advice. I am a part of an extensive Fraternity organization and have met hundreds if not thousands of new people because of that. We are a very diverse group. Taking into account both who the person is talking to you and their personal history or background allows you to (although not 100%) validate their word.--Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the credibility of the person speaking is crucial. Sometimes it can be hard to determine what or who the most credible source is. I have a friend who is very smart when it comes to science and engineering but knows absolutely nothing about anything else. He spends his time doing engineering homework and playing video games. Unless a question was based on one of those two things I would not even consider asking him. A person's reputation of being smart usually can make them credible, but I find that people's interest become very concentrated. Somebody with a concentrated interest in something is usually the most reliable source. --SJRick (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Evidence and Reputation

The first thing I look for in judging a source is concrete evidence. If someone says [this] happened, then I’ll primarily expect to be given a video or audio or other media-centered document of [this]. The next thing I look for, if a reporter uses an unnamed source, is the reporter’s reputation for truth-telling. You can look back into history to see whether a reporter is accurate and honest, and, while this may sometimes result in the potential for corruption on the reporter’s part, there’s nothing else you can really do. The same standards apply to family and close friends, though I’d likely be more trusting of these people since it’s expected we don’t lie to each other. As we discussed in the section for Week 03, though, the advent of online hyperlinks fixes this problem in a huge way. --Information-01152001 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes when I am really skeptical I would also like evidence. This occasionally happens with my friend because, kind of like what we talked about in class, she seems to BS stuff pretty often, especially because she has the tendency to argue just for the sake of arguing. So when these kinds of situations happen I would tell her to give me evidence. There would also be cases where she would overstretch the truth, or misread what she read, so asking for evidence can help clear things up. --MangoDango (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; if a friend or family member and I are having an argument, I'll usually only pull the "show me the evidence" line if there's some status, power, or bragging rights to be gained. Otherwise, for the sake of the friendship or dinner with the family, I'll roll my eyes and let the issue slide. It's far easier to demand proof or evidence online than it is face-to-face. --Katerwaul (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Expert Knowledge

The number one thing that I look for when determining whether or not the knowledge is reliable is who it is coming from. For example, when I hear something from my professor I usually deem that as reliable. When I hear something from my friend I may deem that reliable but only if I know that they have knowledge about the subject. I tend to judge whether or not they have expert knowledge based on how in depth they are able to talk about the specific information. I may ask clarifying questions or questions about more detail and if they are able to answer them most likely they know what they are talking about. What some people may look at is how sure the person sounds, or how confident they sound. I know people that are consistently confident in what ever they say but they are only right about things fifty percent of the time. I personally have come to find confidence on a subject as unreliable. I will sometimes try and get a second source if having absolute correctness if very important to me. Those are the ways that I determine reliability in my every day life.--MartellRedViper (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I definitely consider my relationship to the person giving me information and how well I know them when determining whether or not I believe them. For instance, if my parents were giving me information I would be inclined to believe them because they are looking out for my best interests and I would not imagine they would give me false information without stating that it may not be true. In regards to how well I know a person, I mean that I take into account what I know about the person and their interests to determine if the subject they are discussing is something they may be knowledgeable about. For instance, if I know my friend pretty well and know that he/she is an engineer I would be inclined to believe something they say on this subject more readily than a friend who I know is an English major. --Ryenocerous (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Credentialed "Expert"

Primarily, if someone tells me something that is questionable, I'll look somewhere online to see if the article/story is reported by a credentialed writer, or "expert." But, this changes depending on the situation. If I'm sitting somewhere with a friend and they say "hey, man, did you hear Eric Staal scored three goals last night," I'll, most of the time, trust my friend but ask for them to show me statistics or a video from a trusted website like the NHL's official site. I'm a naturally pessimistic person so when I read/hear something I, most of the time, double check its credibility. For example, if there is a big issue on the news, I always check CNN, Fox News and MSNBC just to hear each network's report on the story.--Jastout (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to point out that you said "friend." It made me think that there's definitely a distinct difference in one's belief of information depending on whether it comes from a friend or an unknown person. Generally, you get to know how often your friends speak the truth and how often they lie. People do not know this information about a stranger. How well you know a person and what you know about their reliability definitely has an effect on whether or not you find them credible. I didn't think about this until I read your post! --Eems.p (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gullibility Quotient

I know that some of my friends are gullible and will believe almost anything. These are dear, sweet, lovely people who just don't seem to have a natural capacity for skepticism. Some people will pass along any urban legend they hear of on the Internet. One friend sent me an email filled with photos of archaeologists digging up giant human skeletons and thought this was proof that there used to be giants on the earth (not just people eight or nine feet tall -- these photos suggested somebody 20 or 30 feet tall). I was immediately skeptical, and some quick research revealed that these photos were all faked. I let my friend know, but meantime she had been passing these photos along to other people. I wrote about it on one of the blogs I contribute to, and I am surprised how many people leave comments saying that they believe these photos are real, in spite of evidence to the contrary -- see http://aroyking.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/have-archaeologists-found-skeletons-of-biblical-giants-in-greece/ --Brodmont (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Some of my friends act the exact same way. More specifically, my friends who have an interest in sports. I had someone come up to me as say "so and so has been traded to the St. Louis Cardinals." Well, I looked it up on credible websites and there was no such report. But, some of the "fake" reports are convincing. My dad will send me forwarded emails about political information that is absolutely bogus but he doesn't go through the steps to verify, relying on his friends' credibility. --Jastout (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)