And hope that no one notices that I’ve failed to produce a cohesive argument, let alone defend but that they’ll still think I’m more credible because I shout ‘cite’ louder and nitpick yours.
Which is why I, personally, will phrase it as, “I’m not doubting you, but I’d be curious to see some documentation of this,” or something similar.
I’m also going to strenuously disagree with the proposition that a necessary prerequisite for asking for a cite is having attempted to dig up the cite oneself. There are two reasons for this. The first has already been mentioned, and is more philosophical, in terms of debate etiquette: it’s not my job to prove your argument for you, it’s your job to support your argument. If you can’t support your argument, then it should be regarded as weak, up to dismissal.
The second reason is more practical: If you’re making the argument, then presumably you have some justification for your assertions, and you will have your sources more close to hand than I’d be able to manage, starting from scratch on a search. I don’t want to play guess-the-article with you, and spend minutes or hours scrounging up something that looks like what you had in mind. It’s your argument; you should have your sources handy, or at least be able to go get them, rather than subjecting your readership to a scavenger hunt.
Yes, there are exceptions, discussed above, but they’re the exceptions. In general, you make the argument, you should be ready to provide a citation if challenged.
I think we’re too EASY on people in GQ and don’t mind ‘cite’ at all. I also have issues with** anecdotal evidenc**e, which used to rear its ugly head once in a while, but now if you want to help prove that Ford vehicle’s suck, all you have to do is say, “I’ve seen a lot of stories about how Ford’s transmission don’t make it past 80k miles, and I had '78 Granada that dropped the tranny at 75k miles”.
You should be afraid – slightly – to post in GQ, unless you have something to back you up. If you’ve established yourself as an expert (say we can reasonably conclude through the years that you are a master plumber) feel free to stand on your rep when chiming in on how to replace a trap.
GQ should be tough business, or we are just downgrading the whole ‘fighting ignorance’ thing to 'Meh, let’s just discuss it".
I think it depends on the assertion being challenged - if someone states that most avian eggs eaten by humans in the United States come from hens, and you ask for a cite, I don’t think it would be at all wrong to introduce you to Google, or advise you to look at any supermarket shelf.
If (as, admittedly, is more often the case) the assertion is a little more obscure, then yes, the person asserting it should be prepared to try to support it.
Discussing things, and fighting ignorance are not mutually exclusive. Discussion and speculation has its place - as long as it is recognised as such - it can provide a springboard or aide memoire for others to provide more rigorously-supported data, if that’s even required (and in some GQ threads - for example, the ‘how do I…?’ type - it just isn’t)
I almost never see people demand a cite for something that is clearly stated as opinion or anecdote.
If you don’t want to provide a cite, don’t state an opinion as categorical fact. It’s not that hard to do, you know. For example, you could justifiably refuse to provide a cite if you said the following,
“I don’t know, but it seems to me that it’s possible that X is true.”
“I can’t vouch for this being absolutely true, but a guy I respect told me that…”
“In my personal opinion, after having read much material on both sides, I believe that…”
I think you get the picture. If you aren’t sure of your facts, and you can’t back them up, don’t state them as facts. If you do, and someone asks you for a cite, be prepared to do some research if you don’t already have one at hand.
That’s the best thing about this message board. 99% of the content on internet message boards is bullshit. What makes the SDMB different (at least in Great Debates and General Questions) is that we’ve adopted certain standards that tend to filter out the bullshit and maintain a somewhat higher standard of accuracy. The main tool for doing that is the expectation that anyone can ask you for a cite for something you have stated as fact, and expect either an answer or a retraction.
Again, it’s easy enough to avoid this - just don’t make statements of fact in Great Debates or General Questions. If you’re pretty sure something is true, but you can’t remember where you heard it, qualify your statement.
Now, ‘Cite!’ can be used improperly for sure. There are certain things that are common knowledge that you shouldn’t have to cite. If you state that shooting someone in the head can kill them, and some joker asks for a cite, the proper response is, “Come on over, and I’ll cite you right between the eyes.”
In my experience, these types of cite requests are pretty rare. More likely, the person getting frustrated by repeated requests for cites is someone who is in the habit of throwing around ‘facts’ based on things they’ve heard from friends or they’re pretty sure they read somewhere, and on the SDMB that just doesn’t cut it.
Well, except, these days, that could get you a warning for making threats. 
WTF are you talking about? In other words: cite?.
Because I have no recollection of interacting with you. And why do you hide behind your cowardice? Why don’t you tell me to my face, in the pit?
The only recent instance I can recall of asking for support was in this thread where DrDeth was posting stuff which was clearly untenable about Hong Kong and at least three posters who had spent time in Hong Kong and China told him he was wrong and asked him for cites which he could not provide and he just disappeared from the thread. You would think the request for cites would serve to show the person that they were mistaken.
I totally agree. I remember when I started contributing to Wikipedia I posted some things which I knew were true but after posting I thought someone might challenge them so I would look for citations and in a couple of cases I found out I was wrong and I had to go back and correct what I had just posted. Now I am much more careful and try to make sure I have support before I post.
I think the standards of Wikipedia should be pretty much the rule in GQ but a lot of people just post whatever pops into their brains. The mindset should be “if what I post is challenged can I support it?”. If not then better not post it. I have avoided posting a few times just because I knew it might be challenged and I did not want to go through the trouble. If you are not certain, better not post and you’ll save yourself some trouble.
Fine. I will admit to being the asshole that actually does ask for cites at dinner parties. ‘Cite’ is one of the boardisms that I actually like. Even when one really means ‘bullshit’.
I don’t use it on the dope much, but I do rememeber I got to use it one time. Unfortunately it was on a nitwit. Wasted.
lol
Cite! only bothered me one time. It was an automotive thread, and I made a comment about a conversation I had about 10 years previously with a factory engineer. I got asked for a cite.
So just how am I supposed to cite a private conversation I had 10 years previously?:rolleyes:
Other than that, it has never bothered me.
No, no, that never happened. Despite it happening all the time, and all the people here saying it happened, we’re full of shit. Cite.
Jeez, does that cite suck. It disproves what you’re trying to use it to claim.
Maybe your problem is that you just don’t know what a proper cite is.
Only by a small margin. I think a better thing to say is, “I find that hard to believe/accept, because…” and then give some reasons. Snipping “cite” is just a lazy way of being supercilious without ground most of the time.
The idea that an anonymous message board can be some kind of bastion of pure and true knowledge is silly. (And I say this with all due deference to those who write special reports and whatnot.) It’s really just a cocktail party where you’re talking to people who you generally don’t know well, though they mostly seem to be well-behaved–only you don’t have to get off your ass and look them in the face to meet them.
Also, ontologically, “facts” in many respects are social constructions. Ideas, assertions, and propositions attain truth value simply because we can point to someone else that has written them. Read the book by Bruno Latour called Laboratory Life.
You wanna cite? Go to the library and borrow the book yourself, lazy mouse potato.
And thus, one more time, asking for a cite proves that the assertion which prompted it was without basis in reality and totally made up. Truth triumphs and the forces of ignorance and darkness retreat in shame and defeat.
It’s not that, it’s just that I’m deathly afraid of physical confrontations over the internet.
Except that I gave you cite after cite, which you just ignored- which is why I gave up.
Nope. Your cites were not relevant in any way and several posters who know a thousand times more about China than you will ever know told you so in that thread. That doesn’t stop you from continuing to assert that your cites support what you say. They don’t.
By the way. I am traveling to Hong Kong in a few days. How many times have you been there in the last five years? In your entire life? How many people who have been to HK or know anything about it support your view? Zero. That’s how much. Try reviving that thread and see how much support you get.
Here are the cites again. Please read and refute:
China
It is illegal for a citizen of China to emigrate without getting permission from the Chinese government. HK residents are citizens of China.
Then this about Art 23
Article 23 became a controversy, and led to a marches in different parts of Hong Kong with as many as 750,000 people out of a population of approximately 6,800,000 at the time.
Journalists in particular are concerned about the new law, especially with respect to journalistic criticism of the Central Government of the People’s Republic of China …
…Other organisations which have spoken out against the proposal include the Hong Kong Journalists Association, Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club and the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong. Members of the European Parliament, and officials of the United States Department of State, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have expressed concerns about the Article 23 legislation.
Some banks in Hong Kong were reported to be considering relocation if the proposed Article 23 is passed out of the fear that the laws would restrict the free flow of information. On 7 December 2002, it was reported in the press that ten foreign banks had told the government privately that the introduction of Article 23 would have disastrous consequences for Hong Kong, threatening its demise as Asia’s financial capital.[6]
Now, how would you traveling to HK on a USA passport somehow refute that "It is illegal for a citizen of China to emigrate without getting permission from the Chinese government. HK residents are citizens of China. " Are you refuting that HK residents are citizens of China? Or do you say any Chinese can emigrate without permission?
Did you refute that “Article 23 became a controversy”?
No, all you said was the currently HK is a peachy-keen place to live and many there are happy with the situation. I never said elsewise. Many people are happy to exchange security for freedom.