3 ms·

> Source? try saying "where can I read more about this topic" if you are interested in the topic, instead of "source?" since "source?" has come to mean an adv

> Source? try saying "where can I read more about this topic" if you are interested in the topic, instead of "source?" since "source?" has come to mean an adversarial relationship even if you aren't trying to discredit the person that had not left a source yet. it commonly appears where someone's worldview is not the same and is not willing to accept new information whether a source was provided later or not. for now "source?" means "I'm not interested in what you have to say and will waste your time" and "where can I read more about this topic" means "please provide canonical sources so I can learn more", ironically

renewiltord 6y ago
It's the most effective way of getting a response, though. For the same reason that saying "Linux can't even support dual monitors" is way more effective to get you assistance than "I've tried using these xrandr commands but can't get dual monitors working on Ubuntu. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?". It's an ecosystem problem. You can't fix it by telling individuals to change. For my part, I don't answer these questions until someone has done some research of their own.
MikeUt 6y ago
> try saying "where can I read more about this topic" Very polite, but also much more ambiguous. Instead getting a reference backing up the claims, you could get a reading list recommendation on black-white relations in the US.
wombatmobile 6y ago
Alternatively, "Could you kindly provide a source reference for that?"
tinus_hn 6y ago
To me ‘Source?’ means Wikilawyerism
- vmception 6y ago
  > wikilawyerism here you just made up a word and I dont know what it means, what does it mean to you?
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    If you do anything on Wikipedia you are bound to quickly run into people who want to use their superior knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to remove your contributions. It’s a highly effective way to promote your own point of view because most contributors will just say ‘whatever’ and give up. That behavior is Wikilawyering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering This tactic of course starts with the demand for sources; a very large amount of the statements in Wikipedia articles do not come with sources (which doesn’t mean the do or don’t exist) so it’s easy to sway the tone of the articles by selectively demanding sources for, and subsequently removing the parts that don’t fit your point of view.
baby 6y ago
Downvoted due to unnecessary thread

renewiltord 6y ago

It's the most effective way of getting a response, though. For the same reason that saying "Linux can't even support dual monitors" is way more effective to get you assistance than "I've tried using these xrandr commands but can't get dual monitors working on Ubuntu. Does anyone know what I'm doing wrong?". It's an ecosystem problem. You can't fix it by telling individuals to change. For my part, I don't answer these questions until someone has done some research of their own.

MikeUt 6y ago

> try saying "where can I read more about this topic" Very polite, but also much more ambiguous. Instead getting a reference backing up the claims, you could get a reading list recommendation on black-white relations in the US.

wombatmobile 6y ago

Alternatively, "Could you kindly provide a source reference for that?"

tinus_hn 6y ago

To me ‘Source?’ means Wikilawyerism

vmception 6y ago
> wikilawyerism here you just made up a word and I dont know what it means, what does it mean to you?
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  If you do anything on Wikipedia you are bound to quickly run into people who want to use their superior knowledge of the Wikipedia rules to remove your contributions. It’s a highly effective way to promote your own point of view because most contributors will just say ‘whatever’ and give up. That behavior is Wikilawyering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering This tactic of course starts with the demand for sources; a very large amount of the statements in Wikipedia articles do not come with sources (which doesn’t mean the do or don’t exist) so it’s easy to sway the tone of the articles by selectively demanding sources for, and subsequently removing the parts that don’t fit your point of view.

baby 6y ago

Downvoted due to unnecessary thread