I know some consider it a proud rallying cry of the doper populace, and maybe it once was, but no longer. It has become, for most practical purposes, snark. I’ve waited and observed for a long time before saying anything about this, so I’m not going to dig up specific examples, because they’re everywhere. I’ve gotten a strong impression that, at least 9 out of 10 times, people asking “cite?” don’t really want a cite, aren’t going to read it if you provide one, or are just going to nitpick the minutiae of it to death.
Even worse has become:
"Cite where . . . "
"Please provide a cite that . . . "
"Please cite . . . "
etc.
You don’t want a cite. You either know it’s something uncitable ("my cousin once told me . . . ", “CITE?!!!”), or it’s something you could find ridiculously easy on Google. Like, first hit easy. Anything that turns up on the first page of Google using obvious search terms should not be asked for. Find that yourself if you’re truly interested. We’re all capable internet users here.
It’s a disingenuous, played-out request that has run its course here and needs to be retired in all but the most earnest of instances. The very minimum criteria for asking for a cite should be that you’ve made an honest effort to find one yourself and failed. It’s not everyone else’s responsibility to hold your hand through the factual intricacies of every discussion. You wouldn’t ask for a cite in the middle of a discussion at a dinner party.
Responding to this post or any part of it with “cite?”, by the way, won’t be clever or original.
Personally, I think the insistence on cites on the SDMB and general tendency to push people towards backing up their statements is what makes the SDMB better than most boards. I’d much rather have too many cites (or requests for cites) than the opposite.
I disagree, at the very least for GQ, where firm information is prized. Let the person making the claim go do a little research, if they’re putting forth an answer that’s on shaky ground. And it serves as a reminder that in GQ, a higher standard is expected. Otherwise, just abolish GQ and put all questions in IMHO.
You’re just figuring that out now? Nitpicking minutiae to death is an Olympic sport around here. I agree it can be tiresome. I especially like the cry for “cite!” when it’s someone’s opinion that’s been posted. As if feelings or thoughts have cites (I sometimes wonder what would be an acceptable cite in such an instance: the notes from a therapy session wherein the poster so asked related his experience and feelings?)
Another type I’ve come to find amusing is the dissection of said cite–“well, you cited a study done in NYC and I’m here in AZ or UK, so of course it doesn’t apply…”*
GD/GQ is a different kettle of fish, but even there picayune rules. Then again, accuracy is important… Anyone else see why I’m a MPSIMS kinda girl here?
*no offense to those here who reside in either AZ or UK or NYC.
It’s one thing if it’s an absurd claim, but quite another when it’s an easily verifiable fact that could be found in the time it takes to write “Cite” in a post. Too many fall into that category, and are just an excuse to look superior. Even for a wacky claim, isn’t it better to refute it, since the wacky guy can cite wacky sources?
This, except that requests for citations are also to be expected in Great Debates as well, and likewise should be encouraged. I even ask for them in Cafe Society sometimes, though there it’s generally less that I’m asking the person to prove his point than that I want to read the information for myself because it sounds interesting.
I agree. If a poster is going to respond to a thread with inaccurate or semantic response as facts, a request for a cite is perfectly warranted. Even if it is used snarkily, the point is made that someone in the thread is acknowledging the erroneous nature of that response. That is important because often times incorrect responses sound perfectly plausible to someone who has little knowledge of a subject, it is for the lurkers and browsers.
I think it’s a useful tool to get people to understand that their assertions aren’t necessarily facts unless they can back them up with some evidence, but it can be overdone. Asking for a cite for an opinion is just silly IMO. I can get a bit frustrated because a lot of the things that I know, especially about homelessness, community organizing and nonprofits, comes from years of personal experience and isn’t something I learned from books. I suppose that I could dig around for all sorts of statistics and surveys but in the end I won’t agree with them all anyway. I do my best never to state those things as facts and instead say things like ‘in my experience’ so that I’m not hassled for a cite.
The real problem is that a “cite” is always expected to be something you can click on. Someone once asked me to give a cite, so I mention the title, author and page number of a book I had. The other poster rejected it because it wasn’t on the internet.
But I also feel that the cite card is thrown as a form of ad hominem attack around here an awful lot. there are plenty of posters who are more interested in winning arguments than fighting ignorace.
I thought it was great debate speak for “Shut up!” Easpecially in contentious debates on controversial topics where facts can be spun to suit any agenda and cites will inevitably be dismissed as coming from outrageously biased organizations.
Yeah. One of my pet online peeves is when people think that their opinions are facts and don’t even realize that most intelligent people know the difference. In those situations I’ll torture them for cites until they admit they don’t have any, and if someone does it to me I deserve it and don’t mind.
I don’t do that here because I’m too new to be obnoxious yet.
There are plenty of times when I would genuinely like to see a cite but the request has so much built in snark that it’s difficult to ask without offending people.
I like to think of myself as having some decent search engine chops, but when a subject comes up that I know very little about, it’s hard to use a search engine to find out more.
