5 ms·

> Source: Firefighter/Paramedic Ugh, HN can we please resist adopting "the reddit meme of providing a snippet of biographical information which (supposedly) es

by dfc 12y ago

> Source: Firefighter/Paramedic Ugh, HN can we please resist adopting "the reddit meme of providing a snippet of biographical information which (supposedly) establishes your authority to speak on the subject."[^1] For a long time the unofficial motto of the CG was "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back."[^2] Does your local firefighting department use USCG Green Amber Red risk management/assessment procedures? [^1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21qxao/brief_reminder_you_are_not_a_source/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21qxao/brief_... [^2]: http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/LSSmotto.asp http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/LSSmotto.asp

JshWright 12y ago
Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I wasn't speaking about the practices of the Coast Guard specifically. The author of the original article generalized to "rescuers" which _is_ something I can speak about authoritatively, reddit memes not withstanding... Our risk assessment is based on various SOGs, which are, in turn, based on NFPA and NIST guidelines.
- dfc 12y ago
  No worries. The "Source" thing is just a hot button of mine and I could not let my respect for what you do get in the way of speaking up. "Source: XXXX" is the internet equivalent of "because I said so" and only my mom gets away with that one. I think it has a dreadful effect on lively intelligent discourse. The Pjs are the least risk averse rescue group that I can think of and even they consider the risk of life when planning conducting operations. The PJs' creed is one of my favorites: It is my duty as a Pararescueman to save lives and to aid the injured. I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before personal desires and comforts. These things I do, that others may live.
  - JshWright 12y ago
    Despite our minor squabble on an internet forum, I suspect we'd get along pretty well...
    - dfc 12y ago
      Complete agreement. Instead of a squabble I think you should consider it "holding your friends accountable to the same standards as your adversaries."
vacri 12y ago
Is the problem the declaration, or the format "source:foo"? Because people have identified themselves as a 'foo' for years here when making a point on a topic outside HN's usual scope, and in this case it's perfectly relevant. "I am a professional rescuer, and this is how we're trained".
- dfc 12y ago
  The occupation is completely relevant however the declaration is utterly meaningless (I say that with all due respect to JoshWright) on pseudonymous discussion boards. "Because I said so" is the antithesis of reasoned discourse. To be honest if a commenter has personal association with a certain topic it seems that it is even easier for them to find legitimate resources to back up their assertion than it is for a curious bystander/enthusiast. If you and I were having a lively mature discussion/disagreement about something would you accept "because someone on the internet said so" as evidence that your conclusion was false? Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?
  - vacri 12y ago
    Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"? Well, yes. Not ironclad authority, but it does actually provide context to their commentary. If the occupation wasn't declared, that context would be missing. It also opens the door for other professionals to say "I also -foo- and we -bar- instead". It would provide a different context had it instead been 'park ranger' or a directly article-relevant 'coast guard in Illinois'. For comments like this one, about rescue procedures, the scope for fake commentary isn't particularly high anyway. It's not a hot-button topic and the commentary isn't at fever pitch (when you stop believing anything anyone says).
    - dfc 12y ago
      It is safe to say that you and I have different opinions about when to accept things based on faith.
kens 12y ago
Personally, I find it very helpful to know if someone has experience with what they are saying versus repeating something they read on a blog once. (Obviously the former could be wrong and the latter could be right.) And if I'm posting something, I try to make it clear if it's something I know or something I'm just guessing at.
- dfc 12y ago
  I also find it helpful "to know if someone has experience with what they are saying." Where we disagree is whether "Source: XYZ" is allegation or fact.
  - kens 12y ago
    dfc, I read the "AskHistorians" link you posted above and I think I understand better where you're coming from. It seems like /r/AskHistorians requires statements to be sourced to standards (probably higher than Wikipedia's) with reliable primary or secondary sources. If that's what you're looking for, then obviously "Source: I'm an XYZ" will seem worthless. My theory of internet discussions is there are three styles: "scientific conference", where participants try to say accurate things to reach factual conclusions; "debate team", where participants are trying to win for their side; and "cocktail party", where participants are having an interesting conversation. The problem is that you're trying to apply "scientific conference" rules to a HN "cocktail party" conversation, and it's not a good fit. (I'm sympathetic to the "scientific conference" viewpoint, by the way.) To answer your question above, I don't view "Source: XYZ" as a fact, but I consider it as helpful information. (i.e. they probably aren't lying about being XYZ, and probably know what they are talking about, so I'll take what they say as having a good chance of being true.)
    - dfc 12y ago
      I appreciate the manner and content of your response. I agree that conversations on HN, for the majority of the time, are cocktail party conversations, ie. good faith collegial conversations. However I think that the "Source: XYZ" is also inappropriate for discussions among friends. Elsewhere in this discussion people were discussing lethality and volts/amps. If you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, make some reasonable comment that "volts blah blah, and amps blah" I am going to take you at your word and carry on our discussion. If it sounds like bullshit I am going to call you out on it and ask for proof just like I would to a friend at a cocktail party. It seems that if I am going to accept your allegation that you are an XYZ simply because you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, said that you are an XYZ I should just accept your original comment. Adding the "Source: XYZ" is troubling for me because it seems to evoke some magical air of authority from thin air. Summoning this cloak of superiority/authority is out of place among friends, just as out of place as someone showing up to a cocktail party in a lab coat. Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources, but if sources are required, legitimate verifiable sources should be used.
FireBeyond 12y ago
There are SOPs and guidelines, and when you're in an incident command position here, you're given a lot more training on survivability and risk assessment, but as a general principle, there are few firefighters who would not find it the noblest of deaths to die (attempting to) rescue someone. "I'm going into that building because I have $4,000+ worth of gear on to protect me and bring out someone who doesn't." versus the same situation where smoke has long since filled to the floor, meaning, in all honesty, that you're doing victim recovery. But... that doesn't mean we (and especially any commander) should make a decision to increase risk beyond reward for themselves or their crew. For a good, real insight into the mindset at play - and sincerely without attempting to play the 'hero' card (most of the people I know in Fire/EMS are some of the more humble you'll meet - we get to do an amazing job that, difficult as it is, is utterly rewarding at times), check out Burn: A Year On The Frontlines in Detroit as something real, in what would be unanimously described as the "worst" FD in the country (situation, circumstance, budget, management - not line staff).

by dfc 12y ago

JshWright 12y ago

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I wasn't speaking about the practices of the Coast Guard specifically. The author of the original article generalized to "rescuers" which _is_ something I can speak about authoritatively, reddit memes not withstanding... Our risk assessment is based on various SOGs, which are, in turn, based on NFPA and NIST guidelines.

dfc 12y ago
No worries. The "Source" thing is just a hot button of mine and I could not let my respect for what you do get in the way of speaking up. "Source: XXXX" is the internet equivalent of "because I said so" and only my mom gets away with that one. I think it has a dreadful effect on lively intelligent discourse. The Pjs are the least risk averse rescue group that I can think of and even they consider the risk of life when planning conducting operations. The PJs' creed is one of my favorites: It is my duty as a Pararescueman to save lives and to aid the injured. I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before personal desires and comforts. These things I do, that others may live.
- JshWright 12y ago
  Despite our minor squabble on an internet forum, I suspect we'd get along pretty well...
  - dfc 12y ago
    Complete agreement. Instead of a squabble I think you should consider it "holding your friends accountable to the same standards as your adversaries."

vacri 12y ago

Is the problem the declaration, or the format "source:foo"? Because people have identified themselves as a 'foo' for years here when making a point on a topic outside HN's usual scope, and in this case it's perfectly relevant. "I am a professional rescuer, and this is how we're trained".

dfc 12y ago
The occupation is completely relevant however the declaration is utterly meaningless (I say that with all due respect to JoshWright) on pseudonymous discussion boards. "Because I said so" is the antithesis of reasoned discourse. To be honest if a commenter has personal association with a certain topic it seems that it is even easier for them to find legitimate resources to back up their assertion than it is for a curious bystander/enthusiast. If you and I were having a lively mature discussion/disagreement about something would you accept "because someone on the internet said so" as evidence that your conclusion was false? Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?
- vacri 12y ago
  Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"? Well, yes. Not ironclad authority, but it does actually provide context to their commentary. If the occupation wasn't declared, that context would be missing. It also opens the door for other professionals to say "I also -foo- and we -bar- instead". It would provide a different context had it instead been 'park ranger' or a directly article-relevant 'coast guard in Illinois'. For comments like this one, about rescue procedures, the scope for fake commentary isn't particularly high anyway. It's not a hot-button topic and the commentary isn't at fever pitch (when you stop believing anything anyone says).
  - dfc 12y ago
    It is safe to say that you and I have different opinions about when to accept things based on faith.

kens 12y ago

Personally, I find it very helpful to know if someone has experience with what they are saying versus repeating something they read on a blog once. (Obviously the former could be wrong and the latter could be right.) And if I'm posting something, I try to make it clear if it's something I know or something I'm just guessing at.

dfc 12y ago
I also find it helpful "to know if someone has experience with what they are saying." Where we disagree is whether "Source: XYZ" is allegation or fact.
- kens 12y ago
  dfc, I read the "AskHistorians" link you posted above and I think I understand better where you're coming from. It seems like /r/AskHistorians requires statements to be sourced to standards (probably higher than Wikipedia's) with reliable primary or secondary sources. If that's what you're looking for, then obviously "Source: I'm an XYZ" will seem worthless. My theory of internet discussions is there are three styles: "scientific conference", where participants try to say accurate things to reach factual conclusions; "debate team", where participants are trying to win for their side; and "cocktail party", where participants are having an interesting conversation. The problem is that you're trying to apply "scientific conference" rules to a HN "cocktail party" conversation, and it's not a good fit. (I'm sympathetic to the "scientific conference" viewpoint, by the way.) To answer your question above, I don't view "Source: XYZ" as a fact, but I consider it as helpful information. (i.e. they probably aren't lying about being XYZ, and probably know what they are talking about, so I'll take what they say as having a good chance of being true.)
  - dfc 12y ago
    I appreciate the manner and content of your response. I agree that conversations on HN, for the majority of the time, are cocktail party conversations, ie. good faith collegial conversations. However I think that the "Source: XYZ" is also inappropriate for discussions among friends. Elsewhere in this discussion people were discussing lethality and volts/amps. If you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, make some reasonable comment that "volts blah blah, and amps blah" I am going to take you at your word and carry on our discussion. If it sounds like bullshit I am going to call you out on it and ask for proof just like I would to a friend at a cocktail party. It seems that if I am going to accept your allegation that you are an XYZ simply because you, a friendly well intentioned internet stranger, said that you are an XYZ I should just accept your original comment. Adding the "Source: XYZ" is troubling for me because it seems to evoke some magical air of authority from thin air. Summoning this cloak of superiority/authority is out of place among friends, just as out of place as someone showing up to a cocktail party in a lab coat. Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources, but if sources are required, legitimate verifiable sources should be used.

FireBeyond 12y ago

There are SOPs and guidelines, and when you're in an incident command position here, you're given a lot more training on survivability and risk assessment, but as a general principle, there are few firefighters who would not find it the noblest of deaths to die (attempting to) rescue someone. "I'm going into that building because I have $4,000+ worth of gear on to protect me and bring out someone who doesn't." versus the same situation where smoke has long since filled to the floor, meaning, in all honesty, that you're doing victim recovery. But... that doesn't mean we (and especially any commander) should make a decision to increase risk beyond reward for themselves or their crew. For a good, real insight into the mindset at play - and sincerely without attempting to play the 'hero' card (most of the people I know in Fire/EMS are some of the more humble you'll meet - we get to do an amazing job that, difficult as it is, is utterly rewarding at times), check out Burn: A Year On The Frontlines in Detroit as something real, in what would be unanimously described as the "worst" FD in the country (situation, circumstance, budget, management - not line staff).