3 ms·

Citing authoritative sources is easily the easiest way to be seen as an expert. Next is having them cite you as an expert source, which is not as hard as it mig

• dredmorbius 10y ago
  A slight difference of opinion. Citing authoritative sources doesn't convey expertise, but is a courtesy to the reader. If you're going to say or claim something, back it up. I'm also picky about how sources are cited, and for anything more than a brief reference, I prefer the author and work be mentioned at least on the first instance, in the text. I'm reading Vaclav Smil currently, who follows the model of (Smith 2015), which I find ... kind of useless: * It's more invasive than a simple footnote or endnote. * It's less descriptive than "George Smith, A Work of Some Note". Which tells me, without having to turn to the back of the book, what I want to look up. * Footnotes, as opposed to endnotes, allow me to quickly find, on the page what it is that's being referenced. This is quite out of fashion. So am I. (On the other hand, endnotes allow quickly skimming all notes of a book in one place. I don't believe this compensates for their numerous other disadvantages.) Expertise isn't based on citing an expert, but in noting the dimensions of a topic or concept, and in particular, the credibly disagreeing points of view. William Ophuls is an author I respect in this. He's absolutely got a point of view (he writes on applying ecological limits to political concepts). But he also notes his principle critics and exemplars of opposing points of view, and frequently considers their views, data, and arguments. This increases my consideration of him greatly.