Is cracked.com a reliable source?

[Mystic Muse]

I'm sure a lot of you occasionally read at the site cracked.com. If you don't and want to check it out, be aware that it probably isn't safe for work/library or places like that.

Now, usually, What they talk about is pretty easy to check. (Simo Hayha, stuff alexander the great's done, the large hadron collider destroing the world, ETC.) However, in a recent article called "6 new weapons you literally cannot hide from" or something like that, there was an article about a weapon called "kinetic fireball incendiaries" and nobody ever believes me when I mention them.

So, is Cracked.com just not reliable? Or should I just find a way to become more credible?

[mikeejimbo]

Their articles are usually pretty well researched, but you may want to double check for another source someplace else.

[Mauve Shirt]

Usually they link to their sources in the text. They're pretty good about that.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

It depends, anyone can become a writer for them and the most commonly used source for many of the articles is wikipedia, so if you wanted to mention something they said I would advise checking out the topic on google and see how well informed they were/ how many liberties they took with the material to make it more funny.

Edit: Also, skim the comments section. Most of the oversights the writer made will be complained about in there and if a commentor got something wrong, someone will correct them unless it's a really obscure topic. Though I would still double check any info you get from the comments section.

[Drolyt]

So, is Cracked.com just not reliable? Or should I just find a way to become more credible?

No idea whether those kinetic fireball incendiaries are real, but you need to become more credible. I've built up a rep where I could tell my friends the sky is red and they'd believe me. It's necessary when so many things that are completely true are so counter intuitive. You need people to trust you.

[Mystic Muse]

No idea whether those kinetic fireball incendiaries are real, but you need to become more credible.

Okay. Any tips on how to do that exactly? or is it something that kind of "just happens'?

[RS14]

Absolutely not--in fact, it was precisely that "weapons you cannot hide from" article that made me curse angrily and vow never to visit again. In particular, the bullets that "can turn corners" can do no such thing. They're steerable to produce extreme precision, but not nearly to the degree described in Cracked's article.

There have been a few other things that I've gotten angry about.

[Drolyt]

Okay. Any tips on how to do that exactly? or is it something that kind of "just happens'?

You know, that's a good question. The hard way is just to be very knowledgeable and show off your knowledge (though not in a showy way, then you just look like a jerk). Alternatively just develop a reputation as an honest guy that doesn't make that kind of stuff up.

Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it I wonder why they didn't believe you? Obviously it sounds ridiculous, but there are two possibilities here: 1. they don't trust you and think you are pulling their leg or 2. they think you are an idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about. You need to figure out which one the problem is.

[Mystic Muse]

Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it I wonder why they didn't believe you? Obviously it sounds ridiculous, but there are two possibilities here: 1. they don't trust you and think you are pulling their leg.

pretty sure it's this one*. Although, being more knowledgeable is probably a good idea anyway.

*at least I hope it is.

[Xzeno]

Nope!

Cracked is usually pretty good about acquiring data, but they write to entertain, not to educate. Cracked cannot be trusted to interpret data in a meaningful way or to arrive at logical and well informed conclusions. They will use as much spin as necessary to be humorous, dramatic, or interesting.

This isn't a bad thing, so long as the reader doesn't trust Cracked as a reliable source.

[Drolyt]

pretty sure it's this one*. Although, being more knowledgeable is probably a good idea anyway.

*at least I hope it is.

Well, part of this is probably your reputation and what your relationship is with the relevant parties. I'm not known for kidding around, so people tend to take me seriously. If you want people to listen to you you need to make sure they look at you respectably.

As for Cracked's reliability, they do some research but they like to exaggerate to make a good story. Don't take everything they say literally, but usually it has some basis in reality.

[Deth Muncher]

I used Cracked on my English 200 essay, but I forewarned the readers that it was a non-credible source.

[Halna LeGavilk]

Cracked is generally reliable, but you gotta remember that it's a comedy website, and that is their first priority- to make you laugh. They're bound to exaggerate somethings for that effect.

[Dienekes]

Well, I know they posted the famous portrait of Pope Julius II and called it Pope Julius III, so it's not infallible. Not sure about their data though.

[Deth Muncher]

Well, I know they posted the famous portrait of Pope Julius II and called it Pope Julius III, so it's not infallible. Not sure about their data though.

I mean, the article I used ("5 Ways to Hack Your Brain into Awesomeness" if you were wondering) had all of the facts being solid - I wrote my paper on the Uberman Sleep Schedule (sort of). But definitely verify any fact you use from there.

[Tulio d Bard]

It's like I say (usually referring to Uncyclopedia but...):

After some reading on the site, you'll get used to it, and will easily get the true information behind the jokes.

[Serpentine]

Mm. I think it has a solid foundation, is normally pretty reliable and well-researched for the sort of site it is, and is reasonably good about including citations and enough information to facilitate one's own research. However, it is written by ordinary people, not experts, who almost certainly get things wrong or off occasionally, who are writing to entertain, who may misrepresent certain facts, and who tend to exaggerate and/or blur the line between "fact" and "joke".
So, use it similarly to Wikipedia, really: it may be a good starting point for research, but don't cite it in an academic paper. At least not without checking its facts, first.

[RS14]

So, use it similarly to Wikipedia, really: it may be a good starting point for research, but don't cite it in an academic paper. At least not without checking its facts, first.

I don't get the point in citing it in such a manner. Wouldn't it be better to cite whatever sources you used to verify those facts? :smallconfused:

[Zexion]

Kinetic (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/11/secret-rocket-b/)fireball (http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2001)incendiaries (http://gizmodo.com/5084789/secret-kinetic-rocket-fire-balls-can-create-hell-anywhere)are (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7278356.html)real (http://42blips.dailyradar.com/story/rocket_balls_pentagon_s_kinetic_fireball_incendiar ies/).

[Serpentine]

I don't get the point in citing it in such a manner. Wouldn't it be better to cite whatever sources you used to verify those facts? :smallconfused:Well... yes. But, it might be viable to cite Wikipedia and all the other, more (officially) reliable sources, although it'd probably be mostly to pad out one's reference list.

[Zexion]

Well... yes. But, it might be viable to cite Wikipedia and all the other, more (officially) reliable sources, although it'd probably be mostly to pad out one's reference list.
In fact, my latest science project was inspired by the "Six Future Technologies That Will Make Today's Technology Obsolete" article. Programmable matter. Got bronze at the regional science fair.

[jlvm4]

Cracked is generally reliable, but you gotta remember that it's a comedy website, and that is their first priority- to make you laugh. They're bound to exaggerate somethings for that effect.

Do they ever identify such things within the text? You know like by color or italics? I've read some stuff there and most times it's easy to hear when it's the narrator's voice, but it would be cool if they had some sort of system for when they were stretching the truth for comic effect

[Frozen_Feet]

I've built up a rep where I could tell my friends the sky is red and they'd believe me.

But... the sky is red during sunset. And during cloudy nights, when lights of the city reflect from the clouds. And during big forest fires.

Why would they not believe you?

[Delta]

I got the impression that the facts researched by cracked are usually pretty reliable, but their presentation is of course biased, they sometimes draw conlusions or interpretations of facts that are pretty far-fetched, but make the whole thing sound a lot funnier, which is to be expected of course, considering cracked is a humor site :smallwink:

So basically, you can rely on the basic facts on the article, but not on everything they say in the article.

[Closak]

This, just this (http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html)


I rest my case.

[Teddy]

This, just this (http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html)


I rest my case.

Wow, I never though I'd see that amount of morony crammed into a cracked.com article, and then I should note that I take most of the science (and history) articles with a pinch of salt and a healthy mouth-full of source critisism. Come on, at least half of the stuff written about nano-bots is just made up. Nano-bots won't grow into sentient murder bots. The laws of physics are working against you! RAAAAAGE! :smallfurious:

[shadow_archmagi]

I used Cracked on my English 200 essay, but I forewarned the readers that it was a non-credible source.

You have to admit, they are pretty great for amusement. You might even say, an in-credible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IncrediblyLamePun) source!

[Zexion]

You have to admit, they are pretty great for amusement. You might even say, an in-credible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IncrediblyLamePun) source!
Have you seen Swaim's new Does Not Compute show? It is hilarious.
Also, Gladstone's latest episode is checking out the Prince Of Persia movie trailer.

[Neon Knight]

I consider it to be the equivalent of a tabloid with a higher standard of research and a slightly stronger basis in fact.

[Haruki-kun]

Is cracked.com a reliable source?

Short answer: No.

Long answer:
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/haha1.jpg
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/haha2.jpg
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/haha3.jpg

[Halna LeGavilk]

Do they ever identify such things within the text? You know like by color or italics? I've read some stuff there and most times it's easy to hear when it's the narrator's voice, but it would be cool if they had some sort of system for when they were stretching the truth for comic effect

Well, I always thought it was generally assumed that certain things, were, of course, exaggerated. A lot of times they use pictures for it too, like

[Something Serious]
[Picture]
Tiny captions mocking above seriousness

Or the like. And then some articles are just outright exaggeration, like the 5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie blahblahblah. Whatever.

Look, in the end, Cracked doesn't have the resources of a real newspaper or anything like that, and most of the articles are written by just normal people. They're not going to try and outright decieve you, if something is wrong it's misinformation, not lies. So, just take everything with a grain of salt, and research some of the more fantastic things.

Remember, truth is stranger than fiction.

[The Extinguisher]

Remember, truth is stranger than fiction.

I disagree. (http://www.viruscomix.com/page440.html)

[T-O-E]

I disagree. (http://www.viruscomix.com/page440.html)

Me too. Since when do people talk so much?

[TheFallenOne]

well, cracked.com is better researched than I expected at first, but if you find something interesting you should check out a more credible source(and by that I don't mean wikipedia) to verify.

The good thing about the site is that they cover a lot of interesting and less-known stuff from a lot of different fields, so with browsing there you can learn(or more accurately find topics for further research) stuff from history, physics, politics, medicine etc. The bad thing is that it's a humor site, so you don't know what's research and what's humor sometimes. Also, their attempts at humor(more often than not speculation about the size of someones balls) get boring annoying after a while. I'd be really grateful for a "Just the facts please" button there