When people replying with “source?” to then end of an argument, I am so frustrated. It is intended as an intellectual reply, but demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking, and not to mention rude.
People often bad mouth Wikipedia for being editable by anyone, and thus potentially rife with error and bias. However, I think the mentality involved in writing the encyclopedia, when applied to the real world outside the wiki-ivory tower, is its more damaging feature. As a policy, which is the Wikimedia Foundation’s prerogative, editors are only allowed to repeat claims and theories made in secondary sources. Editors are not allowed to “synthesize” information from primary or secondary sources to reach unique conclusions. Within the narrow scope of producing a reliable tertiary source, this is fine.
However, those secondary sources are written by people who are allowed to perform synthesis from multiple sources! This is a critical skill that is sorely lacking, and difficult to teach in schools. When people dismissively ask for a “source” when somebody reaches a novel conclusion, they are actively discouraging intelligent thought. They are requiring all new thought to come from approved sources - individuals are not allowed to have their own ideas.
When criticizing an argument, except for the most dubious of claims, provide actual feedback. Analyze the strength of the argument, and point out a flaw or an unsubstantiated factual claim. Explain how the argument falls apart the fact is not true. Point out the logical fallacy that knocks the house of cards down. Don’t blindly appeal to the lack-of-authority making the claim, and call it a day!
TLDR; I love Big Brother… I have always loved Big Brother!
What about the asshole in Great Debates currently claiming that John Kerry lied about his war record and is a “joke” internationally? I think it’s perfectly okay to reply “source?” when people just make shit up.
Actually, having read the post in question, replying “cite” isn’t enough. This implies to the naive lurker that such a citation from a reliable source may exist.
Garbage like this should be moved to the talk page and debated over for months instead… :smack:
See, there’s your problem. Saying “source?” or “cite?” or the like isn’t an insult, nor intended to be.
It’s a direct way of asking for what someone’s evidence for their claim is. Sure, the questioner often strongly suspects the claim is full of shit, but that doesn’t make it an insult any more than a liquor store clerk asking someone young looking for ID.
Wikipedia does not allow its editors to do original research, not because they are in any way opposed to original research, but because that’s not what an encyclopedia is for. IIRC, though, there are other projects run by the same organization that do allow and encourage original research.
What I think many are forgetting to mention here is that many times there is plenty of history to doubt that specific posters are bringing the same debunked to hell points for the 100th time and one should not expect to get a different result than yet another run around from them.
However I do think that indeed, a few lines with links are needed to explain how wrong a same old, same old, poster is before dropping the “Sauce?” on them.
I am flaming a specific incident, albeit on a different forum, where I posted a complicated argument in response to the topic, and got the “sauce?” from some misguided soul. Other people provided perfectly helpful or valid criticism, but then this guy… Turns out he only wanted clarification on a particular factual point, but how the hell would I know that? Similar things have happened more than once…
I agree that responding to the same old bullshit doesn’t have to be elaborate.