4 ms·

Avoid using clickbaity YT videos as source, they are entertainment and not reliable.

by blueflow 3y ago

mikhailfranco 3y ago
I did say like not believe. Specific errors? Counter references?
- blueflow 3y ago
  > Counter references? Bold. You presented no citable references, either.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    I summarized some factual statements - any of them wrong?
    - blueflow 3y ago
      Why is the burden on me? Are any of them right?
      - mikhailfranco 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
        blueflow 3y ago
        Thats better. If you want go get even better, scroll down to the "References" section and follow from there to the primary sources. Wikipedia alone is okay-ish but is often faulty because it accepts journalistic pieces (including some YT videos) as source.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
That's kind of like saying the internet is not reliable. Don't post links. Ok. So now what? Only studies, only peer-reviewed studies? Only peer-reviewed studies published by qualified sources? Only videos based on peer-reviewed studies published by approved sources, that have passed a committees on the non-biased use of artistic representations of special effects in entertainingly but scientifically accurate facts? This whole, nothing is real, there is no truth, is really out of control.
- blueflow 3y ago
  No its not. You are making a bad strawman. YT content creators are financially incentivized to exaggerate things to generate user engagement. This is a conflict of interests. A good source would be something that has its own sources cited or directly comes with evidence.
  - mikhailfranco 3y ago
    That might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but not for HN.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      To that point, HN commenters are also directly incentivized to say certain things because of the way the voting works. You can get a lot of upvotes just by seeming profound (especially if you have a reputation) or "rational" without being either of those things because few people have the time and energy to dissect comments beyond first impressions. Bonus points if you can cite a study even if it does not actually say what you claim or is otherwise dubious (because after all, dismissing it based on the author would be an "ad hominem", right?). The problem HN has with YT content creators being motivated by certain factors is not that they're less trustworthy but that they're tacky. Like Reddit (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community) which is nothing like HN (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community).
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Avoid using clickbaity YT videos as source, they are entertainment and not reliable.

mikhailfranco 3y ago

I did say like not believe. Specific errors? Counter references?

blueflow 3y ago
> Counter references? Bold. You presented no citable references, either.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  I summarized some factual statements - any of them wrong?
  - blueflow 3y ago
    Why is the burden on me? Are any of them right?
    - mikhailfranco 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood
      - blueflow 3y ago
        Thats better. If you want go get even better, scroll down to the "References" section and follow from there to the primary sources. Wikipedia alone is okay-ish but is often faulty because it accepts journalistic pieces (including some YT videos) as source.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

That's kind of like saying the internet is not reliable. Don't post links. Ok. So now what? Only studies, only peer-reviewed studies? Only peer-reviewed studies published by qualified sources? Only videos based on peer-reviewed studies published by approved sources, that have passed a committees on the non-biased use of artistic representations of special effects in entertainingly but scientifically accurate facts? This whole, nothing is real, there is no truth, is really out of control.

blueflow 3y ago
No its not. You are making a bad strawman. YT content creators are financially incentivized to exaggerate things to generate user engagement. This is a conflict of interests. A good source would be something that has its own sources cited or directly comes with evidence.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  That might be an appropriate threshold for Wikipedia, but not for HN.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    To that point, HN commenters are also directly incentivized to say certain things because of the way the voting works. You can get a lot of upvotes just by seeming profound (especially if you have a reputation) or "rational" without being either of those things because few people have the time and energy to dissect comments beyond first impressions. Bonus points if you can cite a study even if it does not actually say what you claim or is otherwise dubious (because after all, dismissing it based on the author would be an "ad hominem", right?). The problem HN has with YT content creators being motivated by certain factors is not that they're less trustworthy but that they're tacky. Like Reddit (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community) which is nothing like HN (a social link sharing site with commenting and a heavily polarized community).
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago