HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| DAPF-SOURCE-LIBRARY
DAPF-SOURCE-LIBRARY
[5567805]
[]
"adversus solem ne loquitor"
# Statistics
Favourites: 22; Deviations: 0; Watchers: 38
Watching: 13; Pageviews: 25628; Comments Made: 115; Friends: 13
# Comments
Comments: 33
Thanks for the welcome!
I thought i'd come here and check out who welcomed me and was equally as confused, until i read down the page comments
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What actually is this? It looks quite interesting. I'm not sure how it all works. Where is the forum?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
This is actually resource library, a collection if you will, of sources for political topics discussed in the DA Political Forum [link] and for the *DAPoliticalForum Club.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is a user account maintained to organize internet links to primary sources that other dA users have found useful in their arguments. It's primarily used by people who frequent the dA Politics Forum, though it's become a good one-stop reference for just about any irrefutable sources.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
See we need one of these, but for doing my uni research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just meant in general really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm looking for informative source on Voting System worldwide. Any suggestion?
mj
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not really sure. I just recently changed the Elections section to one for the US and one for everyone else. The one for everyone else is still blank. Maybe we need a separate section for Voting Machines or Voting Systems?
Nevertheless, I don't have anything right now. When I start from scratch I usually check Wikipedia's sources first and then make sure they're reliable and try google. Sometimes I know some of the major sources like the UN or government agencies, but in this case, I don't know the specific laws or companies making voting machines...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think we need a separate section..because this seems to me quite a vast topic (along with cases etc..). I tried googled .. but not much things helped. Maybe we need to find from other sourses as well.. hm.. do some polls, maybe ?
Nevertheless, thanks for noting this down
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
[link]
The unofficial forum is now up and running. Check it out!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have a Question, what is ynetnews? I thought it might be a dubious source, but it wasn't listed as such?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And so far, I haven't seen anything dubious from ynetnews.com. It looks like a legit source on Israeli news (though it may have a bias toward Israel, but I haven't seen anything glaringly biased).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, I can't remember anything specific, but I do vaguely remember seeing a strange article about an Israeli organization, that when researched turned out not to be in existence. Could just be me, Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If something isn't listed in the dubious sources, that doesn't immediately validate it, just that it probably hasn't been suggested yet. If you think it's dubious, I'll check it out (no one's submitted it yet).
Also, if you see a source elsewhere in the Library you think id dubious, drop us a note or if you'd like to vouch for a source listed as dubious.
I try to only list sources that are very obviously dubious and only very reliable sources elsewhere (so that we don't get into Wikipedia-style bickering over the value of average sources). So in other words, I try to keep the top echelon of good sources and the bottom echelon of really terrible sources so we know what we can trust and what not to give the time of day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know if this could be construed as a first person source, but [link] (talkorigins) has quite a large database of information on evolutionary biology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Source Library is intended to compile hard evidence and commentary on hard evidence. Usenet groups aren't really primary sources or always commentary on primary sources. Thanks for the links though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just have to ask... what is the purpose of this... and is it actually unbiased? Or, I'm guessing, quite biased toward the generally libertarian free-market views of most outspoken members of the forum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's based largely on who presents evidence and whatever evidence I can find. I keep it as unbiased as possible by keeping to primary sources and commentary on primary sources only. It doesn't rely entirely on the input of others, but it does make us of it rather heavily (with oversight).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Its just information. If you stumble across a source on the internet, and it is of reputable quality, just comment on the appropriate journal entry with the hyperlink and a short description of what the source is.
The point here is to avoid seeing "Loose Change" make a comeback tour, and limit the debates to legitimate information.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have looked around here and I can't find 9/11 Truth anywhere? How could you neglect such a truthy organisation?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
As soon as someone posts respectable primary source information or data on it, we'll add it. I'm just waiting for the day we actually get some "creation science" to add in there. I'm also waiting for the day a psychic wins the lottery...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
All thanks to ~emmejay-fwz
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh really? I'll be sure to thank her.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0