Rhinocrates
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,586
- Reaction score
- 6,146
Since we often reference various YouTube channels and blogs in individual posts, I thought it might be useful to open a thread on channels and blogs. We all have different areas of expertise, a channel/blog that explains a particular discipline or range can help one understand what the experts are saying about their discipline. Maybe then we can recommend various sources that help non-experts to understand what the experts are talking about. Since so many are political or are saddled with personal concerns, I suggest these guidelines:
Is it relevant to this forum? That should be obvious. I personally like Simon's Cat, but if I mention it, it'll be in the Furry Avatars of Doom thread.
Are the people running/presenting the resource qualified in their field? Are they or have they been active in their field? Do they know what they're talking about? If they are not themselves, have they referenced other sources who are? Maybe there are interviews.
Is it well-researched? Is the information reliable? Do they provide corroborating links or caveats where the sources are uncertain or contested?
Is it informative? It provides an essential primer and/or it is abreast with current developments. Cutting and pasting of information easily available elsewhere is not enough.
X DESTROYS Y!!!! Oh please... NO. The same goes for listicles. Ranking might be OK if the criteria are clear and don't just boil down to 'coolness.' 'Listicle' sounds like a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease and is about as pleasant.
How well do they communicate? This can be script but also use of graphics, archival sources etc. Sometimes this can mean that they don't use too much stock graphics. Take Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as exemplars - they speak well, are accurate, don't condescend, and the graphics they use are relevant and serve to illustrate and explain what they're saying. The YouTubers may not have high production budgets but you feel that the time you spent watching counted.
Is it (relatively) apolitical? To be fair, a complete absence of political content or framing is impossible but I suggest that ideally, it sticks to the topic and analysis. Interpretation describes but does not judge context, intention, and effect. Essentially, its aim is to explain, not persuade. A channel can discuss the Washington Naval Treaty without relitigating or advocacy in terms of goodies and badies as we have seen in discussions of that topic here. The same should be true as much as possible for contemporary issues. In the case where an ongoing conflict is the context, does the channel do its best to provide a rounded picture which is relevant to the intention of this forum? Rough guide: how would you explain something to a Martian?
Follow general forum rules. Following on from the previous criterion. No woo, no ancient aliens, no wunderwaffen, no advertising - either direct or indirect, no edgelording, no using this thread as an opportunity to indulge one's own obsessions. Sure, we all have our views and would like to advance them, but this isn't the only forum on the Internet and there are others that might be more appropriate soapboxes. At the risk of being a Gradgrind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradgrind), I recommend that there be no imaginary universes (Star Trek/Wars etc.), at least not on this thread. I don't hate it, it's just that there's so much of it that it could get out of hand.
Is it relevant to this forum? That should be obvious. I personally like Simon's Cat, but if I mention it, it'll be in the Furry Avatars of Doom thread.
Are the people running/presenting the resource qualified in their field? Are they or have they been active in their field? Do they know what they're talking about? If they are not themselves, have they referenced other sources who are? Maybe there are interviews.
Is it well-researched? Is the information reliable? Do they provide corroborating links or caveats where the sources are uncertain or contested?
Is it informative? It provides an essential primer and/or it is abreast with current developments. Cutting and pasting of information easily available elsewhere is not enough.
X DESTROYS Y!!!! Oh please... NO. The same goes for listicles. Ranking might be OK if the criteria are clear and don't just boil down to 'coolness.' 'Listicle' sounds like a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease and is about as pleasant.
How well do they communicate? This can be script but also use of graphics, archival sources etc. Sometimes this can mean that they don't use too much stock graphics. Take Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson as exemplars - they speak well, are accurate, don't condescend, and the graphics they use are relevant and serve to illustrate and explain what they're saying. The YouTubers may not have high production budgets but you feel that the time you spent watching counted.
Is it (relatively) apolitical? To be fair, a complete absence of political content or framing is impossible but I suggest that ideally, it sticks to the topic and analysis. Interpretation describes but does not judge context, intention, and effect. Essentially, its aim is to explain, not persuade. A channel can discuss the Washington Naval Treaty without relitigating or advocacy in terms of goodies and badies as we have seen in discussions of that topic here. The same should be true as much as possible for contemporary issues. In the case where an ongoing conflict is the context, does the channel do its best to provide a rounded picture which is relevant to the intention of this forum? Rough guide: how would you explain something to a Martian?
Follow general forum rules. Following on from the previous criterion. No woo, no ancient aliens, no wunderwaffen, no advertising - either direct or indirect, no edgelording, no using this thread as an opportunity to indulge one's own obsessions. Sure, we all have our views and would like to advance them, but this isn't the only forum on the Internet and there are others that might be more appropriate soapboxes. At the risk of being a Gradgrind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradgrind), I recommend that there be no imaginary universes (Star Trek/Wars etc.), at least not on this thread. I don't hate it, it's just that there's so much of it that it could get out of hand.
Last edited:
