As history major myself, these videos, although not as popular as criticisms and "takedowns" of pop history and other topics, are very interesting to watch as a form of tenured advice on research and validity. I find the amount of seriousness that many of these video creators seem to command in their recommendation and subsequent quasi-tenure despite the lack of academic integrity and ethics to be worrying. Especially when once attempts to use historical evidence to prove an opinion, rather than asking a question and using historical evidence to answer the question, whether you personally agree with the effects of that research or not.
This is so informative. The work you put into verifying this single source makes it clear why doing good history work is not conducive to making money on RUclips, which means probably most history channels are at least a little unreliable. I'm sure there's a reasonable difference between scholarly work and popular history on RUclips, just like in book form, but the way people use sources is the difference between the same old wives tale and a really interesting exploration of something we all think we know about. Anybody who does this work would be wise to take this in, as not only will it make their work better but it will distinguish them from the slop out there.
Thank you! I am so glad this was helpful. I am currently making more videos related to this, helping people understand the differences between sources and the typical methods used to validate them.
Quite good. The internet information environment is so muddy that this is more important than ever. On bad days I feel like most people (including the consumers) don't care if the source is low quality as long as it agrees with them. You can't educate that away.
1:34 It might be interesting to do a video on relative recency in various fields. 2014 might be recent for Medieval history, but it sure isn't for molecular biology. 📆
Appreciate the quick response. Will just be continuing my commentary/timestamping on the video. 6:46 After checking the author, check the publisher. 🏛 9:39 Check who is citing the work. 📃➡❔
I'm glad you found it helpful. I have contacted the author or a journal or book two or three times before, and they were quite helpful, though in both cases I was already mainly in agreement with them so it wasn't a matter of critiquing them. But most of the time it's more a problem of figuring out how to contact them at all.
Hello veritas, thank you for such an informative video. I had a question regarding this topic. Let's say, I want to explore a topic historically, and almost all the relevant historical literature existing today by academics is clearly biased and misinformed. The reasons for the same can be anything - ideological capture, intended biases etc. How do I research at that point to ensure I'm getting reliable information? Further, I'm asking this out if ignorance - don't you feel there's always a possibility of getting the legitimacy of a work wrong, when judging it based on citations of the work. Theres always a risk of citation loops. Thanks so much again. You've gained a new subscriber!
Thanks for a great question. 1. How are you determining that almost all of it is biased and misinformed? 2. The sheer number of citations of a work isn't necessarily an indicator of its quality, but when the citations are very clustered in a small niche, outside mainstream academia, and the source hasn't been reviewed by academia, it's a pretty good indicator of whether or not the source has HAD AN EFFECT ON academia. It doesn't mean the source is wrong, it just means you need to find out why academia isn't paying it attention, especially if it's challenging an academic consensus.
Sadly, only way this misinformation and propaganda will decline is when we start teaching media literacy in school. It’s baffling how so many just factually untrue statements I hear; you can tell which outlets they solely listen to.
@@veritasetcaritas would you recommend only reading books that are academically verified and accepted? Or can it be beneficial to read not academically accepted books.
@@Ma1q444 popular works can certainly beneficial, and some academics deliberately write popular treatments of academic subjects to make them accessible to the public, but there are ways of differentiating between good and bad popular sources, and that's what this video helps to demonstrate.
Thank you for the video. This is going to be useful for someone like me who wants to become serious about history. Is it correct that you're an academic historian?
Thank you! No I am not an academic historian. I have an undergraduate degree with a Classics major, and I mainly studied the Greek and Roman history of the Classical era, up to the fall of Rome. I also studied British history from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century, as well as the nationalism, imperialism, and revolution of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But this was all at undergraduate level, very much introductory courses only. I have no academic qualifications in history. I'm just an enthusiastic hobbyist.
@@veritasetcaritas I see, thanks for the information. I was asking because I was wondering how much impact the school where a person studied history has on their later career as an academic.
As history major myself, these videos, although not as popular as criticisms and "takedowns" of pop history and other topics, are very interesting to watch as a form of tenured advice on research and validity. I find the amount of seriousness that many of these video creators seem to command in their recommendation and subsequent quasi-tenure despite the lack of academic integrity and ethics to be worrying. Especially when once attempts to use historical evidence to prove an opinion, rather than asking a question and using historical evidence to answer the question, whether you personally agree with the effects of that research or not.
This is so informative. The work you put into verifying this single source makes it clear why doing good history work is not conducive to making money on RUclips, which means probably most history channels are at least a little unreliable.
I'm sure there's a reasonable difference between scholarly work and popular history on RUclips, just like in book form, but the way people use sources is the difference between the same old wives tale and a really interesting exploration of something we all think we know about. Anybody who does this work would be wise to take this in, as not only will it make their work better but it will distinguish them from the slop out there.
Thank you! I am so glad this was helpful. I am currently making more videos related to this, helping people understand the differences between sources and the typical methods used to validate them.
Quite good. The internet information environment is so muddy that this is more important than ever. On bad days I feel like most people (including the consumers) don't care if the source is low quality as long as it agrees with them. You can't educate that away.
Yeah sadly many people just aren't that interested in whether or not a narrative is accurate.
1:34 It might be interesting to do a video on relative recency in various fields. 2014 might be recent for Medieval history, but it sure isn't for molecular biology. 📆
Yes I will be doing that when I talk about how to select and differentiate between sources.
Appreciate the quick response. Will just be continuing my commentary/timestamping on the video.
6:46 After checking the author, check the publisher. 🏛
9:39 Check who is citing the work. 📃➡❔
This was very useful, so thank-you. One question: is it ever worth contacting the author directly and asking for further information?
I'm glad you found it helpful. I have contacted the author or a journal or book two or three times before, and they were quite helpful, though in both cases I was already mainly in agreement with them so it wasn't a matter of critiquing them. But most of the time it's more a problem of figuring out how to contact them at all.
Noted, Will attempt to use oneday (even though I don't do history content)
This is very helpful! I imagine I'll be coming back to this frequently 😊
Thank you!
Hello veritas, thank you for such an informative video.
I had a question regarding this topic. Let's say, I want to explore a topic historically, and almost all the relevant historical literature existing today by academics is clearly biased and misinformed. The reasons for the same can be anything - ideological capture, intended biases etc. How do I research at that point to ensure I'm getting reliable information?
Further, I'm asking this out if ignorance - don't you feel there's always a possibility of getting the legitimacy of a work wrong, when judging it based on citations of the work. Theres always a risk of citation loops.
Thanks so much again. You've gained a new subscriber!
Thanks for a great question.
1. How are you determining that almost all of it is biased and misinformed?
2. The sheer number of citations of a work isn't necessarily an indicator of its quality, but when the citations are very clustered in a small niche, outside mainstream academia, and the source hasn't been reviewed by academia, it's a pretty good indicator of whether or not the source has HAD AN EFFECT ON academia. It doesn't mean the source is wrong, it just means you need to find out why academia isn't paying it attention, especially if it's challenging an academic consensus.
Great video everyone should watch it in this age of systemic misinformation
Thank you, I will be making more in this series.
Sadly, only way this misinformation and propaganda will decline is when we start teaching media literacy in school.
It’s baffling how so many just factually untrue statements I hear; you can tell which outlets they solely listen to.
@@Ma1q444 I strongly agree. When I worked in a library we ran media literacy courses for this very reason. It's a badly under-rated skill.
@@veritasetcaritas would you recommend only reading books that are academically verified and accepted?
Or can it be beneficial to read not academically accepted books.
@@Ma1q444 popular works can certainly beneficial, and some academics deliberately write popular treatments of academic subjects to make them accessible to the public, but there are ways of differentiating between good and bad popular sources, and that's what this video helps to demonstrate.
I will watch it asap, just leaving a comment to boost what I assume is going to be very valuable content
Thank you!
thank you sir.
An enlightening walkthrough, thanks!
Thank you!
Thank you for the video. This is going to be useful for someone like me who wants to become serious about history. Is it correct that you're an academic historian?
Thank you! No I am not an academic historian. I have an undergraduate degree with a Classics major, and I mainly studied the Greek and Roman history of the Classical era, up to the fall of Rome. I also studied British history from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century, as well as the nationalism, imperialism, and revolution of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
But this was all at undergraduate level, very much introductory courses only. I have no academic qualifications in history. I'm just an enthusiastic hobbyist.
@@veritasetcaritas I see, thanks for the information. I was asking because I was wondering how much impact the school where a person studied history has on their later career as an academic.
@@kaykek7174 you're welcome.
Yeah I'm in the video
Good summary of Liberty University as well as your thinking process. I love your videos, very objective and interesting.
Thank you!
Good video!
Why did I get banned in the Reddit community.
excellent review
Thank you!