4 ms·

One reason The Guardian etc don’t include references to authoritative sources is because they believe they are the authoritative source for their readers. They

by Veen 4y ago

One reason The Guardian etc don’t include references to authoritative sources is because they believe they are the authoritative source for their readers. They expect readers to implicitly trust their writing.

dazc 4y ago
The Guardian is second only to Wikipedia when 'here is a link to prove I am right...' comes into play.
- sph 4y ago
  I don't get your comment. The point is The Guardian doesn't link its sources, at least Wikipedia does.
  - swores 4y ago
    I'm 50/50 whether they're claiming Guardian is good enough to be as accepted as a Wikipedia link, or claiming that Guardian readers are the only ones who consider their newspaper to be as trustworthy a source as Wikipedia. Probably the latter, but a pointless and biased (in one direction or the other) statement regardless.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Whether $Source is good enough to be cited is context-dependent. Top three things to consider: - How much does this really matter? - How quickly could I find a better source? - When $Source [published the article | made the statement], how authoritative was $Source on the specific facts in question? (The Iowa State Univ. student newspaper is fairly authoritative if the subject is a major building fire on the ISU campus. But on some scientific breakthrough? Maybe, if it's only a biographical fact about an ISU professor who was involved in the research...) I like reading The Guardian, but I'd generally call them "too fluffy" to cite as a source.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      I think it can be both. The point being, whatever it is, it's not the higher standard it's supposed to be. The lack of will to strive for that standard is where things go sideways.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      In many debates... i mean arguments on the internet, especially political ones, if you post a link with something the other person disagrees with, their "comeback" will be, that the media in question is "right-wing russian propaganda" (or some combo of that). Guardian links are one of the few, where they can't claim that.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        I have rarely seen that "comeback" when the source is a reliable one as recognized by the standards of, say, Wikipedia
  - dazc 4y ago
    It was irony
- permo-w 4y ago
  and the guardian is an accepted source on wikipedia
bell-cot 4y ago
My guess is that The Guardian mostly does not believe themselves to be an authoritative source...but they understand that many of their readers - especially those with simplistic worldviews, or worldviews held on the basis of meeting the reader's own emotional needs - see things differently. As a semi-regular reader of The Guardian, I mostly regard them as "nice, family-friendly fluff". There are very few angry rants, scantily-clad women, or lurid tales. Their lack of citations & references, sometimes disjointed writing, and generally complete lack of any meta-level perspective (let alone analysis) are pretty clear signals that they have no interest in actually being an authoritative source on any subject whatever.

by Veen 4y ago

dazc 4y ago

The Guardian is second only to Wikipedia when 'here is a link to prove I am right...' comes into play.

sph 4y ago
I don't get your comment. The point is The Guardian doesn't link its sources, at least Wikipedia does.
- swores 4y ago
  I'm 50/50 whether they're claiming Guardian is good enough to be as accepted as a Wikipedia link, or claiming that Guardian readers are the only ones who consider their newspaper to be as trustworthy a source as Wikipedia. Probably the latter, but a pointless and biased (in one direction or the other) statement regardless.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Whether $Source is good enough to be cited is context-dependent. Top three things to consider: - How much does this really matter? - How quickly could I find a better source? - When $Source [published the article | made the statement], how authoritative was $Source on the specific facts in question? (The Iowa State Univ. student newspaper is fairly authoritative if the subject is a major building fire on the ISU campus. But on some scientific breakthrough? Maybe, if it's only a biographical fact about an ISU professor who was involved in the research...) I like reading The Guardian, but I'd generally call them "too fluffy" to cite as a source.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I think it can be both. The point being, whatever it is, it's not the higher standard it's supposed to be. The lack of will to strive for that standard is where things go sideways.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    In many debates... i mean arguments on the internet, especially political ones, if you post a link with something the other person disagrees with, their "comeback" will be, that the media in question is "right-wing russian propaganda" (or some combo of that). Guardian links are one of the few, where they can't claim that.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      I have rarely seen that "comeback" when the source is a reliable one as recognized by the standards of, say, Wikipedia
- dazc 4y ago
  It was irony
permo-w 4y ago
and the guardian is an accepted source on wikipedia

bell-cot 4y ago

My guess is that The Guardian mostly does not believe themselves to be an authoritative source...but they understand that many of their readers - especially those with simplistic worldviews, or worldviews held on the basis of meeting the reader's own emotional needs - see things differently. As a semi-regular reader of The Guardian, I mostly regard them as "nice, family-friendly fluff". There are very few angry rants, scantily-clad women, or lurid tales. Their lack of citations & references, sometimes disjointed writing, and generally complete lack of any meta-level perspective (let alone analysis) are pretty clear signals that they have no interest in actually being an authoritative source on any subject whatever.