3 ms·

There are many options. Off the top of my head, here are a few: Major non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; editorials

There are many options. Off the top of my head, here are a few: Major non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; editorials are meant to be biased, of course. Search their news archives. Major non-partisan think tanks can be fantastic sources, but be a bit careful about their funding. Encyclopedia Britannica is excellent, with articles generally written by domain experts. Coverage isn't nearly as broad as Wikipedia, but otherwise it's a great first stop for most topics. They let you read a few free articles, but don't hesitate to pay for quality information. Review articles in academic journals: An expert reviews the state of the literature. Search Google Scholar. University libraries often have fantastic study guides online, written by experts in their fields. Many academic fields have excellent online resources and aggregations. In philosophy (extending into the philosophical aspects of math, humanities, and more), the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is Oxford Biblical Studies Online: for Islam, there is Oxford Islamic Studies Online. And professors often put together ad-hoc websites.

belorn 8y ago
> non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/Graphics/Fig7_11.pdf http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made. We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback. Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts. Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  There are no perfect solutions, but dismissing all of them because they are imperfect (or mocking them as 'fun' and outdated) is a failure of thinking. Everyone's code is imperfect and has bugs, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss all code as unreliable. The reality is that some things are much more reliable than others, and critical thought is required to distinguish between them. > doing the work oneself and make original meta research It's extremely inefficient, and often impossible to do without domain expertise. Also, there's no reason to think that you are less biased than others.
  - belorn 8y ago
    This then returns us back full circle. If we have to deal with imperfect, unreliable, potential (or even very likely) biased writing that require critical thought to distinguish bias, then where does Wikipedia fit if we order things by reliability. Studies has been done. Wikipedia has a page on it with a long list of cited studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia). I would really enjoy seeing a study done on the 2016 election and see where wikipedia would land. My own view is that the order is something like social media < news < wikipedia < fact checking sites when ordering from least reliable to most reliable. Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > My own view is ... Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions. I strongly disagree with the premise that every analysis - i.e., every personal view - is fundamentally equally accurate or worthy. That goes against critical thought and reason. A major point of the Enlightenment is that through reason, we can distinguish good from bad, accurate from false. You have a right to your own opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Also, you don't have a right to your own facts.

belorn 8y ago

> non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/Graphics/Fig7_11.pdf http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/projects/2017-08_mediacloud/G... It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made. We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback. Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts. Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.

forapurpose 8y ago
There are no perfect solutions, but dismissing all of them because they are imperfect (or mocking them as 'fun' and outdated) is a failure of thinking. Everyone's code is imperfect and has bugs, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss all code as unreliable. The reality is that some things are much more reliable than others, and critical thought is required to distinguish between them. > doing the work oneself and make original meta research It's extremely inefficient, and often impossible to do without domain expertise. Also, there's no reason to think that you are less biased than others.
- belorn 8y ago
  This then returns us back full circle. If we have to deal with imperfect, unreliable, potential (or even very likely) biased writing that require critical thought to distinguish bias, then where does Wikipedia fit if we order things by reliability. Studies has been done. Wikipedia has a page on it with a long list of cited studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia). I would really enjoy seeing a study done on the 2016 election and see where wikipedia would land. My own view is that the order is something like social media < news < wikipedia < fact checking sites when ordering from least reliable to most reliable. Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > My own view is ... Others might have a different personal view, but it is all good so long we all agree that A) critical thought is required for all reading in regard to controversial topics, and B) there are no perfect solutions. I strongly disagree with the premise that every analysis - i.e., every personal view - is fundamentally equally accurate or worthy. That goes against critical thought and reason. A major point of the Enlightenment is that through reason, we can distinguish good from bad, accurate from false. You have a right to your own opinion, but that doesn't make it right. Also, you don't have a right to your own facts.