4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoIn 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoTrue, that's another sense of being sourced from a journal