[RD] What are your highest quality recurring sources of information?

[Lexicus]

It's interesting because most people have talked about news, which I view more as interpretative than as something to go to for facts.

For information about scientific topics it's best to read actual papers in the field or failing that, at least what other people in the field have to say about those papers for consumption by the plebs (I count myself as a pleb wrt most fields of knowledge and endeavor). For basic stuff you can always consult reference materials. Usually official publications are best, for example sites ending in .gov (though of course the government is not to be trusted on general principles).

 

[Quintillus]

It's interesting because most people have talked about news, which I view more as interpretative than as something to go to for facts.

For information about scientific topics it's best to read actual papers in the field or failing that, at least what other people in the field have to say about those papers for consumption by the plebs (I count myself as a pleb wrt most fields of knowledge and endeavor). For basic stuff you can always consult reference materials. Usually official publications are best, for example sites ending in .gov (though of course the government is not to be trusted on general principles).

I agree, but there are some factors that make it challenging to go for the source paper:

• Knowledge that the paper exists. Sometimes I will go to a source paper from a news article for more details, but I rarely know about the source paper first.
• Paywalls. Papers from official government bureaus such as the Census Department are typically readily available, but a good number of industries have their academic or technical studies behind paywalls that sometimes charge significant amounts for access (i.e. $30+ for an article). I'm rarely (i.e. de facto never) so interested in a topic I read an article enough to pay that much for access. IMO, academic research, especially when government-funded, winding up being paywalls is a topic that should be addressed.
• Technical background to understand an article. I'm unlikely to understand a physics article, but am much more likely to understand an article about that article. Ideally that is from an expert in that field summarizing it in terms a layperson can understand, but I don't have a go-to list of sites I visit by authors in every field (I do occasionally visit sites of prominent members in my area of expertise at least, such as Bruce Schneier for computer security).
• Time/motivation. Rigorous academic articles do typically require a non-trivial time investment to properly understand, and while that was typically there when I was reading technical articles for my computer architecture course, it's less likely to be there when I've arrived home and am eating dinner after my day job, particularly if I'm unlikely to make practical use of the knowledge.

One other benefit of news articles is they are more likely to put a paper in the context of the rest of the field (although not always). And since I rarely have enough knowledge in a field to be able to read a new paper and know its context in relation to other papers, that is useful.

But a good point that technical articles should not be dismissed as a source of information. Knowing how to identify a good, well-sourced/researched source of information, and to rely on that rather than more opinionated/biased/unreliable sources is an important skill, and one that may not be as strong in the age of online self-publishing and social media as it was in the past.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree, but there are some factors that make it challenging to go for the source paper:

Oh, absolutely. Really, this is the biggest problem:

And since I rarely have enough knowledge in a field to be able to read a new paper and know its context in relation to other papers

But a good point that technical articles should not be dismissed as a source of information. Knowing how to identify a good, well-sourced/researched source of information, and to rely on that rather than more opinionated/biased/unreliable sources is an important skill, and one that may not be as strong in the age of online self-publishing and social media as it was in the past.

The key is getting the competence to differentiate fact from interpretation. Facts aren't to be disputed, but interpretation must always be recognized as such. I try never to fully accept interpretation, only to entertain it.

EDIT: Of course, interpretations that
are inconsistent with the facts, or
lack internal consistency

can be safely ignored. No real need to entertain those.