There are two types of citations. There are, of course, the Wikipedia, CNN, or HuffPo links, which are at best facts mingled with opinion, or, at worst, contex

There are two types of citations. There are, of course, the Wikipedia, CNN, or HuffPo links, which are at best facts mingled with opinion, or, at worst, contextually inaccurate sound bites. Then there are scholarly citations, which consist of scientific data, complete, primary-source media, etc. The latter are the only types of citations I typically take seriously. Even then, as you point out, there are other things to consider. For example, if a scientist publishes something controversial in a peer-reviewed journal, you still have to wonder what his or her motivations are. Who is funding them? Have their personal biases, or those of their benefactors, tainted their results? I tend to strive for scholarly citations in my arguments, but in the end, I realize we are all emotional beings, and personal biases and emotions tend to trump knowledge, wisdom, and logic more often than we'd like to admit.