4 ms·

i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." an

i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. Nature is a reputable publication. I think this boils down to internet folks assuming their conversational partner has the same level of knowledge they do, don't believe the other party, and then ask for proof, rather than educate themselves. The citation was trivial to produce. "Citation needed," and it's cousins should be reserved for things that aren't easy to find. This is just embarrassing.

StavrosK 5y ago
> i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. I don't know why you think that's obvious. In fact, I wouldn't have expected that query to yield anything relevant, so I wouldn't have even thought to try it. That's what "knows what to search for" means, it doesn't strictly mean "coming up with obscure jargon keywords".
- cycomanic 5y ago
  I have to agree with the previous poster, quite often citation needed is being used as a passive aggressive form of "countering" an argument (I have to admit to having used it myself). And if, like in this case, the study (which was what the poster claimed existed) comes up as one of the first results in a google search, I find "citation needed" either to be disingenuous or lazy. Just as a test I searched for "SARS-COV-1 immunity" and got quite a few relevant references as first results as well (even though not the exact study mentioned above). This is HN, so I think we can expect people know how to search google.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    Oh I definitely agree that "citation please" is rampant as a way to tire out your "opponent", I just think that it's usually in good faith on HN, or at least in this instance.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  My demonstration was to prove that you don't even need to know what to search for. I literally took the words he typed into a comment box and put them into a search engine instead. And that was WITHOUT trying to massage it to get better results.
Buttons840 5y ago
As the parent comment mentioned, there are "both sides" out there, making it difficult and unreliable to expect people to educate themselves. If someone is asking for citations in bad faith, they probably have "educated themselves" already, just with the wrong education. If someone believes a conspiracy, and they "educate themselves" as you propose, they will probably come to believe even more strongly in the conspiracies. Half the time people ask for citations they probably believe the claim and just want more confirmation. If I ask for citation it's often because I want the authors personal opinion on what sources are good. I don't want to Google, I want to discuss things with people, that's why I'm in a comment section. And, of course, being a comment section sometimes people just stop talking, whether intentionally or not. I don't like to see people who ask for sources be treated as though they're the bad guys. I'd rather see more focus on sources than less. If you don't want to be asked for sources say "I think...", but don't be upset if you say "studies have shown..." and somebody asks what studies you're referring to.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  Sure, people should be able to identity what is a valid source and what isn't. It's fine to ask about what classifies as good or bad sources (format, publications, etc), how to search, or whatever. But this isn't what happened. It wasn't "help me to find good articles on the topics like these" it was "citation needed." In fact, I don't think I have EVER seen anyone ask how to find reputable publications on a certain topic. I also like sources, and when I'm saying things that have provable claims, I like to back them up. Still, what I DON'T go into the comments for is a long list of people going "citation needed!" I come for interesting debate and perspectives. But that's not what i'm getting—i'm getting people disagreeing with each other by putting the onus on the other party.

StavrosK 5y ago

> i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result. I don't know why you think that's obvious. In fact, I wouldn't have expected that query to yield anything relevant, so I wouldn't have even thought to try it. That's what "knows what to search for" means, it doesn't strictly mean "coming up with obscure jargon keywords".

cycomanic 5y ago
I have to agree with the previous poster, quite often citation needed is being used as a passive aggressive form of "countering" an argument (I have to admit to having used it myself). And if, like in this case, the study (which was what the poster claimed existed) comes up as one of the first results in a google search, I find "citation needed" either to be disingenuous or lazy. Just as a test I searched for "SARS-COV-1 immunity" and got quite a few relevant references as first results as well (even though not the exact study mentioned above). This is HN, so I think we can expect people know how to search google.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  Oh I definitely agree that "citation please" is rampant as a way to tire out your "opponent", I just think that it's usually in good faith on HN, or at least in this instance.
MAGZine 5y ago
My demonstration was to prove that you don't even need to know what to search for. I literally took the words he typed into a comment box and put them into a search engine instead. And that was WITHOUT trying to massage it to get better results.

Buttons840 5y ago

As the parent comment mentioned, there are "both sides" out there, making it difficult and unreliable to expect people to educate themselves. If someone is asking for citations in bad faith, they probably have "educated themselves" already, just with the wrong education. If someone believes a conspiracy, and they "educate themselves" as you propose, they will probably come to believe even more strongly in the conspiracies. Half the time people ask for citations they probably believe the claim and just want more confirmation. If I ask for citation it's often because I want the authors personal opinion on what sources are good. I don't want to Google, I want to discuss things with people, that's why I'm in a comment section. And, of course, being a comment section sometimes people just stop talking, whether intentionally or not. I don't like to see people who ask for sources be treated as though they're the bad guys. I'd rather see more focus on sources than less. If you don't want to be asked for sources say "I think...", but don't be upset if you say "studies have shown..." and somebody asks what studies you're referring to.

MAGZine 5y ago
Sure, people should be able to identity what is a valid source and what isn't. It's fine to ask about what classifies as good or bad sources (format, publications, etc), how to search, or whatever. But this isn't what happened. It wasn't "help me to find good articles on the topics like these" it was "citation needed." In fact, I don't think I have EVER seen anyone ask how to find reputable publications on a certain topic. I also like sources, and when I'm saying things that have provable claims, I like to back them up. Still, what I DON'T go into the comments for is a long list of people going "citation needed!" I come for interesting debate and perspectives. But that's not what i'm getting—i'm getting people disagreeing with each other by putting the onus on the other party.