3 ms·

That a person cited sources should not be seen as a sign of the quality of the work. Nor should be the amount of citations the person makes. In some cases the l

That a person cited sources should not be seen as a sign of the quality of the work. Nor should be the amount of citations the person makes. In some cases the lack of citations can be used to suggest a piece of writing should not be taken seriously. But never the other way around. It's extremely common for people to reach a conclusion, and only then to go looking for research. And, then, to be looking only for research which backs up their claims. Since there is often extensive research backing up both sides of issues, and also because these people rarely actually examine closely the articles they are citing (upon inspection the articles are often speaking about something different, saying the exact opposite thing, etc.), the citations have nearly zero positive value.

sudosysgen 5y ago
That doesn't change that I was correcting an incorrect statement. Someone said the source was Reddit, it isn't, it has multiple sources, none of which are Reddit. As far as I'm concerned this is a complete non-sequitur.
- garbagetime 5y ago
  The source is undeniably Reddit, in a sense (in the sense that it is opposed to a peer-reviewed journal). Regardless, I directly addressed a portion of your comment. I believe the portion was meant to borrow some of the creditability of serious journals and give it to Reddit - which is, perhaps, a bad idea, for the reasons I laid out. To label my comment a non-sequitur is ridiculous.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    In no sense is the source Reddit, anymore than the source of a New York Times article is paper, or the source of my word is your screen. Citing sources is meant to borrow the credibility of the source for elements of your argument. Not to attribute that credibility to the sheet of paper your pen is inking.
    - garbagetime 5y ago
      I suspect you've locked onto the specific denotation of "source" as being an individual article. That is not the only denotation of the word. It can also refer to, as examples, persons or journals.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        I absolutely haven't. A source can be an article itself (as in the content), or it can be an organisation (a joirnal, a newspaper), or it can be a person. I'm saying that the source isn't the medium over which the content itself is delivered. So for example, the New York Time is a source, so is any given article and it's associated author. However, the blank paper on which it was printed isn't a source, neither is the ink it was printed on, and correspondingly a website which merely relays words is not a source, but a medium.
        garbagetime 5y ago
        True, that's another sense of being sourced from a journal

sudosysgen 5y ago

That doesn't change that I was correcting an incorrect statement. Someone said the source was Reddit, it isn't, it has multiple sources, none of which are Reddit. As far as I'm concerned this is a complete non-sequitur.

garbagetime 5y ago
The source is undeniably Reddit, in a sense (in the sense that it is opposed to a peer-reviewed journal). Regardless, I directly addressed a portion of your comment. I believe the portion was meant to borrow some of the creditability of serious journals and give it to Reddit - which is, perhaps, a bad idea, for the reasons I laid out. To label my comment a non-sequitur is ridiculous.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  In no sense is the source Reddit, anymore than the source of a New York Times article is paper, or the source of my word is your screen. Citing sources is meant to borrow the credibility of the source for elements of your argument. Not to attribute that credibility to the sheet of paper your pen is inking.
  - garbagetime 5y ago
    I suspect you've locked onto the specific denotation of "source" as being an individual article. That is not the only denotation of the word. It can also refer to, as examples, persons or journals.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I absolutely haven't. A source can be an article itself (as in the content), or it can be an organisation (a joirnal, a newspaper), or it can be a person. I'm saying that the source isn't the medium over which the content itself is delivered. So for example, the New York Time is a source, so is any given article and it's associated author. However, the blank paper on which it was printed isn't a source, neither is the ink it was printed on, and correspondingly a website which merely relays words is not a source, but a medium.
      - garbagetime 5y ago
        True, that's another sense of being sourced from a journal