How does one cite sources when they have posted their own understanding from research or experience? I find it condescending to ask a poster on a forum that has posted more than just a blanket few-sentence statement and explained why they are taking a particular viewpoint, for sources or links. Do we believe that outside sources are from more intelligent people than we have on this forum? Do we value outside "experts" over the many highly intelligent members we have here? Citing sources in most cases is a show of "I was taught what to think" rather than "I learned how to think.." I am not saying that posting links, videos, or articles by others is not of value, but when that is more important to prove a point than discussing our own understanding, then it becomes no longer a discussion forum, but an archive of links that can be found several places on the internet. We have a great resource of minds from various experiences on this forum and it seems a waste to just discard their opinions, research, or knowledge in lieu of an outside source.
Any time you go to a webpage, your browser will display the URL for it, usually at the top of the page in its own little window. It usually starts with “http://www.…” They can some times be quite long so you have to make sure you “select all” when copying it because the little window often does not have enough room to display the whole thing.
You missed my point, Thomas. My question was how do you post a source when your post and writing are the source? Do you start your own webpage and give yourself a fancy title and then quote your own writing? My point is quoting an outside source is not as important to a discussion as using our own minds. Certainly, as seniors, we can think a bit more in-depth than copy and paste.
Well, I always say “it seems to me”, “in my opinion”. I think folks usually understand that to mean that the view expressed is that of the person sharing it. It might also, or not, be the view of others known or unknown. I think this evolves into one of my pet peeves though eventually and is why I almost always will cite references of some sort, especially if my statement is controversial in the least. My peeve is that too many people do not understand the difference between knowledge and belief and conflate the two often times. Like I said though, my pet peeve.
It is. While there might be situations in which someone has an honest interest in knowing where a bit of information came from, usually this is used as a way of disrupting a discussion, either because it amuses them to do so or, more often, because the discussion isn't going the way they'd like it to be. When someone doesn't have the knowledge to defend their agenda, they might make citation demands in order to disrupt the discussion and discourage people from joining in. It's a form of trolling.
Well, I find it helpful and interesting. First, I don’t know anyone here, or for that matter in most any forum, so I don’t know what they know about what they’re saying. Secondly, if it is an interesting comment, I would like to read more about it in detail. Finally, hearing a statement from one source doesn’t carry a lot of weight with me, especially if it sounds a bit off.
Ask politely if you have a true interest in knowing where the information came from, keeping in mind that the person you're addressing may not be interested in searching it up. For example, I have learned a lot of things over the years. Right or wrong, these things are part of my knowledge base now, and I don't walk around with a catalog of citations. Demanding that someone provide a source in order to continue with the discussion is rude and disruptive. In most cases, when it comes to a forum discussion, the citation is something that anyone could find through a search engine; however, when the person being asked for a citation takes the time to do so, their source will simply be dismissed off-hand. When someone has a true interest, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it, but that's rarely the case. There was a time when a reporter writing a story for publication in a newspaper would be expected to cite his sources but, these days, news reports often do not cite sources, or cite anonymous sources, such as "a high-ranking official" or "someone close to the source," and so on. People discussing a topic are not generally asked for citations. Forums are discussions, not news articles. That said, anyone should feel free to cite sources here if they wish to, but it's unfair and disruptive to demand this of someone in order for the discussion to continue.
The trouble arises when people insist their opinions are facts; when they quote statistics that may not exist.
The words "Trust but verify" come to mind for this thread. Personally, i want to see sources when new (to me) information is assertively presented as fact. If no sources are cited, I try to politely ask for them. I do understand that not all named sources are trustworthy.
Yep, belief vs. knowledge. I liked my initial readings in epistemology but then it got up into the stratosphere.
How do you verify a poster's wisdom gained from their experiences? What I see being sought with most cite your sources is questioning a poster's knowledge from their experience, not just their opinions. An outside source is prized by the seeker over the posters. How do you know the poster isn't the world's expert? I agree with Ken that "cite your sources" is just a way to shut down a discussion. Opinions require no citing of a source but if one makes a statement as the fact that isn't a personal experience, then they should include more proof to back up their claim. I would rather see a discussion in their own words than a link to what some organization or expert said. My preference would be to ask why they felt this was a fact in their own words. If a poster claims Tommy James and the Shondells sang Hanky Panky and some lazy contentious troll says to cite your sources, then that jerk could be shut down by posting a video. But why is it the poster's responsibility to prove what they know is correct? Had the questioning person replied that they thought it was sung by Paul Revere and the Raiders, then a constructive discussion will follow and the one confused didn't attack the OP. We live in a world where facts are many times silenced and labeled disinformation. If one supplies a link to a scientific site that was once well respected and the questioning rude member demands an outside source, checks it out, and fact checkers says it is disinformation, then such is not a discussion but a crap-throwing contest.
When stating something gained from wisdom, knowledge, experience, etc, people should say something like "to the best of my knowledge" or "in my experience". If you're not ready to be questioned on something you say or write, maybe you shouldn't say or write it.
I think most reasonable people know that you can find "sources" for almost any "fact" on the internet if you search hard enough. When I see someone's source is JoesOpinionBlog.net or ParanoiaDailyBecauseYou'llBelieveAnything.com, I don't really think quoting the source makes much difference. (Sometimes seeing CBS.com or Yahoo gives me the same reaction)
It isn't about not liking being questioned, it is about being questioned in an ignorant nonproductive way. I don't think anyone should have to preface everything with IMO or IME, etc. If you question someone's posts, then state in length why you question it. Start an intelligent discussion, instead of dismissal and insult such as "cite your sources infers." That is my point. I enjoy being asked questions and engaging in discussions, but not confronted with blanket statements meant to demean me and my intelligence.
I just realized a time when I would cite a source should I post in reference to it. There is a YouTube channel that I believe is the most impartial source of information on the Ukraine war. The host renamed it and since then YouTube has not showed it in a search, so people would be unable to find it if they were unaware of the channel's title. YouTube will send you to a West-slanted channel if you simply search the title. Although most here are not interested in the war, should Iuse information form that source, I will certainly cite it in a link.