Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
I'm curious about something.....
If someone has a blog and posts something that you believe is not factual, is it your perogative to go hunting for proof that backs your claim or is the onus on the blogger to back up their assertions with credible facts?
There is one blog that I keep 'challenging' the owner about the sources of some of their more....insane opinions and whenever I ask where did they read/learn/hear about the topic in question, I get static about looking for myself to back up their claims.
Just curious as to who the responsibility is on: the person on the soapbox or someone in the crowd.
UPDATE
Thanks for the comments, but I wanted to edit/amend this a little because (to me) it appears as though I'm whining. I'm not.
Just more.....confused as to the proper etiquette when initiating a debate, so as to not come across as a beserk troll looking to just annoy someone about anything they post.
I'll usually post any back-up I think I need as a hyperlink in the body of the post, or I'll quot
Read more in Stumped
Shae said:
this whole issue just drives me crazy. I'm glad you brought it up. Yes it's their blog, and the
Read more in Stumped
ron said:
I'm with you all. I think the B.S. artists get weeded out by natural selection. Same as not watch
Read more in Stumped
Cait said:
I agree with Scroff and the others. It's good sense to have factual sources to back up whatever
Read more in Stumped
scroff said:
Well, I didn't think you were whining, Mad One...
as far as your clarification... I don't
Read more in Stumped
timekeeper said:
It's their blog, so they can do whatever they want, up to (and including) deleting your comments
Read more in Stumped
Comments on Stumped
I would say the original blogger should offer credible facts for the claims they make. Its kind of like work, can't just tell the boss that we should use black steel pipe you have to provide a reason why. However when countering a claim, I would have the same demands for factual evedince to support the counter-claim.
As for the inital factual support for the inial claim, that blogger should provide it, if they had any desire to appear credible.
|| Posted by the Pirate, November 26, 2004 12:39 PM ||Well, Mikey, it's their blog, they can write whatever they want and don't have to show 'proof' of anything. IMNSHO, if they can't or won't back it up, good riddance to them. But if I want to prove someone is wrong, or that I'm right, I'll go look it up.
It's frustrating though, when you read something and scratch your head going, "Where the hell'd they get that???"
Hey... you're not talking about me here are ya??? ;)
|| Posted by scroff, November 26, 2004 02:21 PM ||Hey... you're not talking about me here are ya???
Nope - not you. You back up your arguments.
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, November 26, 2004 02:39 PM ||Nope - not you. You back up your arguments.
*Whew*
You realize that's only because I hate looking like a fool.
|| Posted by scroff, November 26, 2004 02:50 PM ||It's their blog, so they can do whatever they want, up to (and including) deleting your comments (even if the comments provide facts to back your position), or telling you to do the research yourself (which is usually the last fallback of a weak mind, although I have used it when someone starts playing the five whys game with me).
However, there is NOTHING stopping you from linking to their idiocy and activating the flamethrower. The only thing they can do is delete the trackback (if any) or try to rebut you here. If they don't have facts to buttress their arguments, they end up looking like idiots.
|| Posted by timekeeper, November 26, 2004 04:03 PM ||Well, I didn't think you were whining, Mad One...
as far as your clarification... I don't know if there is any 'rule of thumb', I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this one, too.
|| Posted by scroff, November 26, 2004 07:03 PM ||I agree with Scroff and the others. It's good sense to have factual sources to back up whatever you post. But if a commenter wants to counter the argument, I think he needs to have factual sources as well. Of course, if a blogger just wants to throw out unproven bullshit as fact, that's their perogative, I suppose. I know that I won't waste a click on that sort of crap. And, no, Scroff, you're not one of them! You do a good job of referencing your stuff. That's why I go back to your place.
|| Posted by Cait, November 27, 2004 07:06 AM ||I'm with you all. I think the B.S. artists get weeded out by natural selection. Same as not watching a certain T.V. network ,because I think they're full of crap.Facts are facts, and should be provable, opinions are opinions, and should be labled as such. Real life has a way of taking care of asshats.
Example:
Prior to exiting active service, I was stationed with the I&I staff near my home town, My father owned a hotel and called me to get a drunken Marine out of the bar. Thing was, he said the guy looked younger than me. (see where this is going?)So happened that my First Sgt was unoccupied for the afternoon and gladly accepted my invitation to drinks curtesy of my dad and me.After a few rounds, some of which this guy bought while regaling us with his "the Nam" tales ( I hadn't realized that you could be a Marine if you were twelve) A couple of local recruiters appeared, and without much ado, escorted the private to his self-chosen destiny.
Moral of the Story, Honor, Courage, and Commitment are the things that make people successful. The same thing in the Blogosphere, those who blog unfounded crap don't get revisited.
|| Posted by ron, November 28, 2004 12:43 PM ||this whole issue just drives me crazy. I'm glad you brought it up. Yes it's their blog, and theoretically, they should be able to post whatever they want to. hell, even the NY times doesn't get their facts straight all the time.
Howwwwwweverrrr, let's get realistic: if someone wants their readers to see them as a credible source, and as one who can be counted on to post the true story, then they better back up their facts and figures every time. And if they find out they made an error, they should be man or woman enough to admit it.
|| Posted by Shae, December 1, 2004 02:56 PM ||After awhile, the readers catch on. you can only fool some of the people some of the time, (yada yada). and anyone who repeatedly visits a site that is full of factual errors has only themselves to blame if they turn around and quote that site on their own blog.
just my 2 cents about this issue and NOT about your blog in particular :)
great blog, btw, Mike!
I'll usually post any back-up I think I need as a hyperlink in the body of the post, or I'll quote directly from the source. Sometimes though, (as in the case of John Kerry's military service), I get tired of constantly backing up my points with the same references I have already stated in previous posts. At that point I tend to get a little shitty and tell folks to look the stuff up themselves.
Another point is the sources themselves. Again, using Kerry as an example, some folks believed the Swiftboat Vets and some believed Kerry. Some things can be extremely difficult or impossible to prove. At my blog I figure that my credibility is pretty good, so I don't worry about it too much. I also usually try to find out everything I can about something before I post it so I don't look like an idiot. I hate to eat my words. Opinion pieces are different. Hey, it's my opinion!
d.
|| Posted by deuddersun, December 11, 2004 07:50 PM ||