6 ms·

Are you serious? > by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". You're saying "I don't care for your random op

Are you serious? > by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that you didn't just make that up." When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. It's not hard, and it's sure as hell not anyone else's job. If you don't cite a source, people will reasonably assume that you have none, and disregard what you're saying. That's fine if you don't care, but I repeat, if you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. That job is yours and yours alone, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, only you can cite your source because only you actually know what source you used. Secondly, from a utilitarian efficiency perspective, if it takes X minutes to look up and post the source, then the total time spent when you cite your source is X, but if you don't, and everyone has to look it up themselves, the total time spent is X*n, where n is the number of people who read your post. For values of n greater than one, this is dumb. Do the sourcing once, to avoid duplication of effort.

Tichy 15y ago
So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more. If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead. The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  > In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Well, in a 1-on-1 conversation, the value of n is 1, so, consistent with what I said, that would be dumb. In fact in a real-time face to face conversation, the time taken to cite the source is more like X(n+1), because while you're looking up the source, the listeners are likely to be just watching you look up the source, so you're using their time as well. Internet comment thread != real life conversation. > If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me My first reaction to an unsupported claim is "You could have pulled that out of your ass", because you could have. And no, I don't have that much respect for random strangers on the internet, because I don't know you, I don't have any reason to believe you have any relevant expertise, I don't know your motives, I can't observe your body language, tone and facial expressions, which would normally help me tell if a person knows what they're talking about. I have nothing to go on, other than what you write, and if what you write has no support, I can't assume there is support for what you write. > The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact If people already know something, there's no point in posting it. The only people for whom reading your post is worthwhile are people who don't already know it. They are your audience, and they are the people you are neglecting. > On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed. You just stick in a link to the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink), it doesn't really get in anyone's way. If they're curious about the source, they click the link.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    "If people already know something, there's no point in posting it." I think you expect something else from HN or this discussion than I do. I think it can be helpful to remind other people of facts in a discussion, lest they get carried away. Not every human exchange has to consist of novelties. If I do maths, I might remind myself that 2+2=4. I have known it before, but chose to recall that knowledge at opportune moments. In discussions, other people can help with the recalling, it does not imply that the other parties were ignorant before. It is just about adding another perspective. "I have nothing to go on, other than what you write" In such situation I tend to resort to common sense. Does it seem plausible ("have merit") what the other person is saying? If yes, I might remember it as an interesting thought (not as established fact), or if it seems useful if true, might take further steps (Google) to verify it. It's not that hard, and you don't have to insult the discussion partner. Here is another idea: "That sounds interesting, do you by chance remember the source for that?" See the difference? But hey, it is the internet, there is no human on the other end.
Tichy 15y ago
Also consider this: if PG or Steve Jobs made some claim, would you also reply with a blunt "citation needed"?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  If Steve Jobs made some claim about the history of Apple Computer, I wouldn't ask for a source because he is a source. If he were making a claim about the correlation between attractiveness and success, then yes I'd ask for a source, because why should he know anything about that in particular? But even in that case, he's already a real person I know of, a person who is known to be pretty intelligent, a person whose motivations I can have a reasonable guess at, a person who I know needs to be careful about what they say in public fora. Each of these things put Steve Jobs a little ahead of 'random stranger on the internet' for reliability.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    "a person who is known to be pretty intelligent" That is just the thing. Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. That might be rational, but I don't think it is very conductive for human exchange. Another thing: why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?
    - robertskmiles 15y ago
      > Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. My default assumption is that the person is of average intelligence. Jobs is of substantially above average intelligence, as demonstrated by having founded and run an extremely successful technology company. That puts him ahead. > why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me? I've addressed this before as well, when I said "if you want to be taken seriously". If you don't care about the opinions of people who read your posts, that's fine. If you do care, cite your sources so people can tell that what you're saying corresponds to reality. Still, if you really aren't concerned about what people think when they read your comments, why not just write them in a text file? Why publish things on the net if you don't want people to think you're saying something worthwhile?

Tichy 15y ago

So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more. If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead. The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.

robertskmiles 15y ago
> In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Well, in a 1-on-1 conversation, the value of n is 1, so, consistent with what I said, that would be dumb. In fact in a real-time face to face conversation, the time taken to cite the source is more like X(n+1), because while you're looking up the source, the listeners are likely to be just watching you look up the source, so you're using their time as well. Internet comment thread != real life conversation. > If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me My first reaction to an unsupported claim is "You could have pulled that out of your ass", because you could have. And no, I don't have that much respect for random strangers on the internet, because I don't know you, I don't have any reason to believe you have any relevant expertise, I don't know your motives, I can't observe your body language, tone and facial expressions, which would normally help me tell if a person knows what they're talking about. I have nothing to go on, other than what you write, and if what you write has no support, I can't assume there is support for what you write. > The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact If people already know something, there's no point in posting it. The only people for whom reading your post is worthwhile are people who don't already know it. They are your audience, and they are the people you are neglecting. > On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed. You just stick in a link to the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink), it doesn't really get in anyone's way. If they're curious about the source, they click the link.
- Tichy 15y ago
  "If people already know something, there's no point in posting it." I think you expect something else from HN or this discussion than I do. I think it can be helpful to remind other people of facts in a discussion, lest they get carried away. Not every human exchange has to consist of novelties. If I do maths, I might remind myself that 2+2=4. I have known it before, but chose to recall that knowledge at opportune moments. In discussions, other people can help with the recalling, it does not imply that the other parties were ignorant before. It is just about adding another perspective. "I have nothing to go on, other than what you write" In such situation I tend to resort to common sense. Does it seem plausible ("have merit") what the other person is saying? If yes, I might remember it as an interesting thought (not as established fact), or if it seems useful if true, might take further steps (Google) to verify it. It's not that hard, and you don't have to insult the discussion partner. Here is another idea: "That sounds interesting, do you by chance remember the source for that?" See the difference? But hey, it is the internet, there is no human on the other end.

Tichy 15y ago

Also consider this: if PG or Steve Jobs made some claim, would you also reply with a blunt "citation needed"?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
robertskmiles 15y ago
If Steve Jobs made some claim about the history of Apple Computer, I wouldn't ask for a source because he is a source. If he were making a claim about the correlation between attractiveness and success, then yes I'd ask for a source, because why should he know anything about that in particular? But even in that case, he's already a real person I know of, a person who is known to be pretty intelligent, a person whose motivations I can have a reasonable guess at, a person who I know needs to be careful about what they say in public fora. Each of these things put Steve Jobs a little ahead of 'random stranger on the internet' for reliability.
- Tichy 15y ago
  "a person who is known to be pretty intelligent" That is just the thing. Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. That might be rational, but I don't think it is very conductive for human exchange. Another thing: why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?
  - robertskmiles 15y ago
    > Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. My default assumption is that the person is of average intelligence. Jobs is of substantially above average intelligence, as demonstrated by having founded and run an extremely successful technology company. That puts him ahead. > why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me? I've addressed this before as well, when I said "if you want to be taken seriously". If you don't care about the opinions of people who read your posts, that's fine. If you do care, cite your sources so people can tell that what you're saying corresponds to reality. Still, if you really aren't concerned about what people think when they read your comments, why not just write them in a text file? Why publish things on the net if you don't want people to think you're saying something worthwhile?