> I guess people can sometimes abuse it. Person A: water is wet, person b: [citation needed], etc or demanding citation for an ancedote about someone's personal

> I guess people can sometimes abuse it. Person A: water is wet, person b: [citation needed], etc or demanding citation for an ancedote about someone's personal experience, but i dont think i see that very often. I see this quite often. In particular, a common pattern: Person A: water is wet Person B: [citation needed], you clearly have an agenda Person C: I experienced water and found it to be wet Person B: [citation needed], anecdotes are not data Person D: water is dry (Person B silently clicks to upvote and does not respond, or less subtly, continues the discussion but does not apply the same "standards") Rare meta-discussion follow-up: Hey person B, you seem to be selective in your standards of evidence. Person B: I'm neutral and rational! All of this wastes people's time and energy, and nobody (including B) are going to derive any value from any further responses to B's comments. The generous interpretation: Person B is fooling themselves into thinking they're being rational by asking for evidence instead of saying "nuh-uh!", but they don't realize they're only asking that of statements that bother them, and they're unlikely to actually change their mind regardless of the amount of evidence. The less generous version: Person B knows exactly what they're doing, but is playing neutral to waste people's time and effort. Versions of this pattern, with more incendiary topics in place of the humidity of dihydrogen monoxide, appear often.