4 ms·
Why should it be the author's duty to guess at what level of "verification" is enough to satisfy you?
by n09n 13y ago
Why should it be the author's duty to guess at what level of "verification" is enough to satisfy you?
- raphman 13y agoI agree that some people may want to see more evidence than others. Of course, there is no clear boundary between "obvious" and "needs proof". However, I found that most people are quite able to judge whether it would be helpful to include a source for a statement. I think that within most discoursive communities there is an implicit consensus on when a statement needs an explanation or a supporting source for it to be accepted [1]. Regarding the author's "duty": Maybe I should have called it 'courtesy' instead. On the other hand, if I am not completely mistaken, HN was intended as a forum for constructive and thoughtful low-noise discussions. As I want to profit from these discussions, I personally see it as my duty to make my comments as helpful as possible. I would argue that including source for statements more often is beneficial to a discussion than not. Therefore, I prefer to see sources. [1] sorry, no source but my own experience as a member of some scientific communities and online forums.