[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
While each SDSAB member has qualifications, we don’t pretend that we’re doing original research. We’re usually researching and synthesizing. In the early days, we didn’t give much in the way of references or cites, but nowadays we almost always provide some sort of reference for those interested in pursuing.
[/QUOTE]
After all, this isn’t an academic journal, but basically a fun website based on an idiosyncratic column in an alternative-press weekly. While we all do our best to make sure the information provided is accurate, it’s a bit much to ask that every statement have a citation.
If I make statements based on my general knowledge about a subject, I often won’t bother to reference them. But if they are based on some controversial or esoteric research, I usually will provide a citation.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
That information can often be cross-checked, and is open for comment by anyone in CSR or CCC. In effect, everything on the Dope is subjected to constant peer-review; there are enough people here that are knowledgeable on the subjects I write on that I would be caught out if I were really winging it.
[/QUOTE]
This is the crux of the matter, I think. Nobody’s actively checking qualifications; the main skill the PTB look at is the ability to write clearly and effectively and research the subject well enough that the resulting report isn’t obvious bullshit. I suspect Ed Zotti might engage is some fact checking, particularly with a new Guest Contributor, but the bulk of accuracy verification is left to the Teeming Millions who will surely spot a fraud sooner or later. And the system seems to work well enough, I’m not aware of any Staff Report that was a total cock-up and by and large the majority of issues with them tend to be comparatively minor quibbles about factual content, IME.
The Staff Reports are also available for review to the other members of the SDSAB before publication, so there is some cross-checking at this stage too.
This has led to some collaborations on reports between **Doug ** and me; I write on the birds and he writes on the bees.
[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven] Gfactor, although an expert in his own right, tends to provide many cites.
[/QUOTE]
Not to speak for GFactor, but I might hazard a guess that he provides copious cites for the same reason I tend to… In the realm of legal writing, almost any substantive claim requires a citation, and the habit is hard to break.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Not to speak for GFactor, but I might hazard a guess that he provides copious cites for the same reason I tend to… In the realm of legal writing, almost any substantive claim requires a citation, and the habit is hard to break.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a big part of it. I also try to include whatever online cites I can find for future searchers, and I try to include some key cites for myself. As others have said, the “peer review” (in the comments forum) here can go on for a long time. If somebody has a question, I may need to check my sources again. That’s hard to do if I’ve forgotten what they were.
I actually consult many more sources than I cite. But a reference list that is too long makes Ed a bit testy. So my personal criteria is something like:
Is it a great online resource?
Does it provide credible support for a claim that might be controversial or surprising?
Does it a address a topic that comes up on the board a lot?
Does it offer a deeper or different explanation that I don’t have time or space for here?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then I try to include the source in my references.
