I think people mostly scoff at topics/posts where the TC doesn't say anything other than "watch this 30 minute video to understand my stance on an issue".Youtubers are also trying to normalising these 7-10 hours review.
if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.
if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.youtube videos is actual work,you people need to stop with this idea that if they are not doing a 9 to 5 job under other people then it's not actual work,that is just dumb, youtube videos take a lot more work then some 9 to 5 jobs
if they were any good they would be out writing research papers or doing actual work instead of posting YouTube videos.That's a pretty backwards way of thinking at this point tbh.
youtube videos is actual workAlso this. Really good Youtubers are doing the same amount of research that would go into a research paper, while also still writing out their script for the video, then on top of all that are filming, editing, and marketing said video.
Voted the wrong way in the title. Voted yes, meant to vote no. Positing questions as a negative tends to be more confusing and more likely to get incorrect responses, btw.Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.
Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.What the fuck?
Report that shit for trolling because he damn well knew this when he posted it.Or maybe just use your brain for 2 seconds
How many research papers have you read in the past year?
Now how many Youtube videos have you watched in the past year?
There's a ton of good youtubers with excellent videos and information that are free, some are comparable to stuff you'd see on Discovery or Nat Geo. Thinking it offers nothing of value is dumb.
Video is a terrible medium for getting information across because it's temporal by nature.
Video is a terrible medium for getting information across because it's temporal by nature. Combine that with it being hard to quickly cross reference information if most information is presented in video format, and it makes it an excellent medium for mis/disinformation. Textual information isn't amazing for getting your message out there to the largest audience, but it is amazing for verifying that there's any truth in it whatsoever. If you post a reference in a video, it could just as easily be a ChatGPT hallucination. If you post it in a paper, I copy/paste the reference, search it on google or a scholarly article compendium, and have the primary source to verify that it does, in fact, say what you say it does.Many YouTubers put reference in the description.
People think Scishow or Kyle Hill are not credible?Kyle was infamous for farming content
Kyle was infamous for farming content
Always go to PrankInvasion or WebWeebySurf for real science show.
Lol. This is comical.How so?
Kyle was infamous for farming contentDon't they pretty much get assignments from the show runners? That's how most of those large channels and collectives operate.
Always go to PrankInvasion or WebWeebySurf for real science show.
How so?
Frankly, the average person isnt reading research papers on the reg. People want their work seen by others. Its pretty straight forward my guy.
Many YouTubers put reference in the description.That's very different from inline annotation in terms of referenceability.
That's why it's ridiculous. Nobody reads research papers. Hell, i'm an actual researcher and I probably end up watching, on average, more youtube videos than reading research articles. But that's because your average youtube video takes about a minute to consume while I allocate a minimum of an hour to read through a research article in my field of expertise.I never said it was comparable. The user I was addressing was trying to say why dont they just write research papers instead of making YouTube videos.
But that's because the information is fundamentally different. The goals are different. Watching a youtube video on an academic subject is not comparable to attending an undergrad class on the subiect, nevermind reading research articles.
That's very different from inline annotation in terms of referenceability.I can only speak as a layperson, but so what? I don't think people are claiming youtube videos can replace research papers, only that they can be useful in medium in gaining knowledge on a subject, not necessarily an understanding.