Why is Cracked considered the best source to cite in TV Tropes?

Is there some inside joke that I'm not aware of or do most people actually think that a website considered an equivalent to MAD Magazine to be the greatest research source on the web? There's just something chilling about that opinion.

edited 18th Oct '10 4:36:54 PM by Squeaks

We don't really cite things for factual backup... well, except video game news sometimes?

Not all the time no, but more than once I've seen it be used to show scientific studies. Again, I have no idea if it's taken with a grain of salt and a laugh or if a good number of people take it to heart?

edited 18th Oct '10 5:22:11 PM by Squeaks

I think it's more because people find the studies cited on cracked as interesting, and that's where they're exposed to them. Usually serious discussions involve someone going and finding the source studies, however, because cracked definitely has plenty of media spin.

Cracked puts the humour in the articles but I think it's always very obvious where the actual results of the research they did (yeah, they actually do research for their articles) end and the joke begins.

I wouldn't use Cracked as a source for an sctual scientific study (if it wasn't about online humour or something) but I will use it on these fora, since Cracked is about as accurate as most people posting on religious or political threads are.

Squeaks: It not. There are some tropers who really like it and, given half a chance will cite it or add it as an example. There are others who don't care what Cracked has to say on a subject.

Fixed typos.

edited 19th Oct '10 8:50:28 PM by Madrugada

At least they actually bother to quote their sources. I mean, that's a pretty neat thing in a humor site.

And let's face it, although they sometimes come to some interesting conclusions from scientific studies, they don't tend to be any worse in that front than mainstream science reporting.

They are amusing. That's really all you need to know about them. Using them as an actual source to make a point shouldn't be done before having checked their sources.

Besides which, The Other Wiki is the best source to cite.

"There are others who donm't caare what Crackedhas to say on a subject." - Madrugada

Was the "caare" thing supposed to be a means of expressing a sarcastic tone, or just a typo?

Cracked is probably one of the most overrated websites right now.

edited 19th Oct '10 9:44:52 AM by DasAuto

Considering that I also misspelled "don't" and ran "Crackedhas" together, it's safe to assume that I was having trouble typing at the time.

edited 19th Oct '10 11:43:37 AM by Madrugada

The Other Wiki is a shit source to cite because the content is written in such an obtuse way that it can often only be understood by people who already know the subject, rendering it useless as an information repository. I've read actual scientific journals that were easier to understand than The Other Wiki.

I find it only useful for writing, media and locations, really. I've never really found it to be all that useful when it came to things like High-Pressure Cells or Chemistry, as it tends to assume you have a base knowledge of the subject already and are just there to brush up on things.

But that's just me. I read Cracked because their articles tend to be funny.

edited 19th Oct '10 5:23:19 PM by Legionnaire

... ok then. Maybe you could fix it? @ Madrugada

I read wikipedia for the dates. I mean some Historical books just assume that you know the timeline of events, even if you don't. Thats when wiki comes into its own.

Cracked is overrated....

Off of this website both online and IRL, I've maybe heard them be mentioned once, most people I ask don't know who they are either.

The Other Wiki and Cracked are both interesting for the sources they provide. The Other Wiki has improved it's overall content as time goes by and they often provide some very useful resources in the resource list. Not always the case but their resource lists have been handy in topic research.

Cracked is funny, but they do cite what they're basing their articles on. You can get a decent picture of what's actually true by following their links, and obviously the joke article is what interests people in the topic in the first place. I can think of worse things.