In today’s column,
Is that black line down the back of a shrimp what I think it is? (19-Oct-2000)
(Geez, I hope that link works) SD staffer Hawk cites three reference-book sources for his response.
On the practical level, I applaud this…seeing that Staffers lack the omniscience of Cecil Adams (except for Songbird, who is the serene embodiment of perfection and loveliness), it’s good to be able to read up our ownselves.
Looking at it aesthetically, though, I’m bugged.
When the second STRAIGHT DOPE volume was published, my wife (girlfriend, then) said it bothered her that Cecil would occasionally let on where his info originated. She preferred the approach of the first book, which was more or less “I, Cecil Adams, hold the keys to the infinite. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.” She didn’t like the image of Cece shuffling over to the bookshelves in his fez and down-at-heel slippers and peering around for his copy of THE JOY OF COOKING.
What’s the general feeling of the T. Millions about this?
(Dex, if you consider this a poll, I suppose it could be moved to IMHO.)
I really like it when sources are cited. For one thing, I believe that citing sources is the bedrock of intellectual honesty, though I have traditionally been willing to cut Cecil a great deal of slack on this issue, given that he Sees All And Knows All. (Also because he is an entertainer, not an academic.) I also like cites because they give one some leads if one is curious and would like to learn more. In thoroughly and completely answering the question, Cecil or the SD Staff might drop some tidbit of knowledge which, though it cannot be covered in a column of finite extent, might spark the desire for further inquiry. Ultra-bonus if the cite is a link to a cool web page, providing instant gratification.
Letting people know where you got your info doesn’t make you look less smart. Indeed, anyone who’s done any serious research knows that it takes intelligence and hard work to differentiate between reputable and questionable sources.
I gotta agree with the Podkayne. Sources are good.
But then I never bought into the whole “sees all, knows all” thing. More of “knows how to find the information you want to know but are clueless to begin trying to look up.”
How many times have we had a comment start with “Cecil didn’t answer ", when "” was something tangential to the question. Sources are a good way to say “go look up ______ yourself, you lazy ninny.” 
It also depends on the nature of the information. If it’s something which is common knowledge in the appropriate community, then it’s perfectly appropriate, and perhaps stylisticly preferable, to leave off the source. On the other hand, some answers really do need the support. Remember, Cecil’s goal isn’t for him personally to end ignorance, it’s for ignorance to be ended. To that end, he’s trying to teach everyone to do some small fraction of what he does, so that we can all eliminate ignorance ourselves. If he uses a source, it’s good to let us know.
I like the occasional use of sources, whether or not they are from The Joy of Cooking. It is not a matter of Cecil stooping to find the knowledge, but of pointing out where we might go to find things for ourselves. The use of strange sources has great potential for humour as well. I love to point out the unreliabilty Solomon’s wisdom with respect to child custody as demonstrated by Cartman from South Park.
IMHO:
I think that due to Cecil Adam’s reputation (and also because I assume there is a length limit to his columns in the Chicago Reader) sources are superfluous. On the other hand, for lesser mortals, the source is a good indication that they didn’t make the stuff up. On the other hand, if it’s an area in which the SD advisory staff member is an expert, or if it’s the staff member’s profession (e.g. SDStaff Doug on bugs), then a source is probably unnecessary.
I also meant to say-
from a PR point of view, I think it’s better for Cecil Adams not to list his sources. Otherwise people will start reading the column and thinking “I could be doing what he’s doing”. The main selling point of the books is that he knows information hidden from the common man.
‘SOK, Ike, I’ll leave it here. No point in movin’ stuff unless it really needs to be.
I can’t speak for Cecil, of course, but there’s lots of stuff he just KNOWS… but then li’l Ed needs to check out sources. I mean, there was dinosaur sex, frinstance…
For Staff, we’re uneven about citing sources, admittedly. Sometimes we do, sometimes not. Sorta depends on whether we think the source is “fun” and that others may look it up.