What we have here is a fine example of one of my pet peeves, that being, you can’t depend on citing sites for the linchpin of your arguments. So, when there is a debate going on at the SDMB, and someone cites a site to prove their point, be skeptical, be very skeptical. Information on websites must be equated to information in newspapers, always subject to revision.
Agreed, **cc[/c], the discerning member does not simply take a citation at face value, and should expect to be confronted with counter-citations from other resepected sources.
Um. Are you saying that print sources never ever disagree and conflict with each other? And that spilling ink onto dead trees somehow guarantees that whatever that ink spells out will be God’s own truth? Right… :rolleyes:
Kudos to you, ccwaterback, for stating something that has been bothering me for quite a while. It takes very little validity or credibility to post something to the Internet. Much less, in fact, than having it published in book form. Even in book form, depending on the integrity of the author, the editor, the publisher, and anyone else in a position to validate the content, books themselves are suspect.
It’s even questionable for sites like Straight Dope to have all the facts on things. Once the issue of credibility arises, it’s very hard to isolate the definitive source on anything.
Sites as cites are amusing at best. In my opinion, the best way to regard any of it, with very few exceptions, is that it is either: a) one person’s opinion; or b) open to interpretation; or c) waiting for more data to come in. Rarely is any “fact” the pure truth in any discussion.
That is why I don’t refer to websites as “source” for no matter what, with sometimes exception made for official websites (for example the UN Website).
Using websites to “prove” your point seems to be an accepted tactic on message boards like this, and in my experience especially among the US members.
Since day one of my posting here I’m attacked frequently that I don’t give what they name “sources” to underscore my argument and that I tell the members that I don’t gather my information from websites.
I also explained why that is. That some people refuse to accept my explanation can hardly be my problem.
The same reservation counts for newspapers. What you read is only the impression - or the story - of one single person who wrote the article. In addition to that, this person also writes in function of the wishes of his employer.
The same reservation counts for everything you see or hear on any form of media.
Even when you have the same story repeated in different media by different persons, it doesn’t mean that they bring a reliable version of what is sold as the truth. Sometimes it even means that they are all bringing the same distortion of it or the same half of the full story.
Websites aren’t sources.
So if you give one or a dozen, each of them bares the risk that the information is incorrect.
So what is in your opinion the “proof” of your case when you bring up one or more websites?
So, you would refuse to link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that happens to be online, eh?
Irrelevant. You cite NO SOURCES AT ALL for your daffy claims. Y’know, it IS premissible to cite books, professional journals, etc. and let the audience look it up for themselves. Refusing to cite AT ALL simply means “I’m pulling it all out of my ass, so I can’t tell you where I made up this stuff from.”
Gee, in that case, let us take your premise to its logical conclusion:
Since everything is just pulled out of somebody’s ass–including what YOU post, then nobody should EVER believe that you tell the truth, QED. By your own reasoning, we should all believe that you should never be believed.
Not all sources are equal. If you post someone’s personal website, that isn’t much use as a cite, but if you post an official agency website, that will carry much more weight.
Posting a URL doesn’t mean you get to check your mind out at the door, you still have to show that your source is a good one. But the point remains, there are excellent sources on the web that cannot be dismissed simply because they are in electronic form.
This is no different from someone giving as source as a book or magazine. You must always evaluate the source before you give it any credibility.
Well by that argument books are not sources either. Sources would be the actual journals kept by various experimental chemists, physicists, biologists, historians etc.
The use of cites is to provide 3rd party confirmation of your assertion. The validity of the data from the cite ties to the validity of your argument. I could easily argue that Atlantis is
Real
Existed with a high culture
Was located on Antarctica
The cite I could find (or the book for that matter) becomes relevant only if the information contained there is legitimate. The source of the cite (say Encyclopedia Britannica vs. The Exposer News Service) tends to be used as a measure of validity. Care needs to be taken that the source of the information does not poison the facts presented. Its always possible that legitimate cites are wrong or have presented information in a different context.
Well by that argument books are not sources either. Sources would be the actual journals kept by various experimental chemists, physicists, biologists, historians etc.
The use of cites is to provide 3rd party confirmation of your assertion. The validity of the data from the cite ties to the validity of your argument. I could easily argue that Atlantis is
Real
Existed with a high culture
Was located on Antarctica
The cite I could find (or the book for that matter) becomes relevant only if the information contained there is legitimate. The source of the cite (say Encyclopedia Britannica vs. The Exposer News Service) tends to be used as a measure of validity. Care needs to be taken that the source of the information does not poison the facts presented. Its always possible that legitimate cites are wrong or have presented information in a different context.
The majority of the finest peer-reviewed scientific journals are now online, avialable through web browsing. Are you truly so delusional as to think that these journals, including Nature, Science, Nucleic Acids Research, and Journal of Molecular Biology, some of the most highly respected scientific journals around, are “not sources”?
Citing references may indeed be a US way of doing things. It provides support to the opinion raised. The real issue should be one of credibility of the cite sources. If one is continuously citing geocities.com or angelfire.com web sites, a credibility flag is raised (even if the site cited is owned by someone with some noteriety.)
OTOH, a cite reference to site that has a long history of striving for accuracy, fairness, objectivity, etc., provides support to an OPs opinion. Of course, media sites are often not accurate. However, and often for the sake of the debate, they offer background information to others and help to gain a better understanding of where the OP may be coming from in their opinion.
Don’t forget that your cite source you used as an example (the UN web site) has its own agenda as well. The site may have a higher level of credibility because of its parent owner, but it still may not be a definitive, objective and reliable source. The UN has its own political agenda, and that agenda is often manipulated by individual member states for their own ends as well.
While the SDMB has a world-wide membership, it is US-based and the majority of its membership are also US-based. It has an inherent bias towards a US system of cites, references and credibility. Those outside the US who gain a level of respect and credibility here probably do so by earning that respect under the US standard. Once there, offering an opinion/thread with insufficient citeable references may become acceptable because the OP has developed a perceived credibility in their own right on this board.
Perhaps one reason why you are often taken to task here Aldebaran is that you have yet to establish a personal credibility on this board. By refusing to “come to the party” using the US standard of citeable references this board uses, you now run into roadblocks. Is this fair? No. But it appears that’s the way it works here.
I believe there are some good cites on the net, but I also think that if a cite is used that that majority of people here agree with, then any attempt to say otherwise is met with a bit of resistance which quite often goes to character attacks.
I’d also like to point out that the ABC and Forbes articles are referencing the same company and so should be expected to agree. Also note that the ABC article says “about 3 times” which implies it is either a little more than 3 or a little less. Error bars make for boring journalism.
Besides, which spider’s silk, how big, what cross section etc. etc. If you had 2 cites with wildly differing numbers (say a factor of 5) then you could complain.
While I think the general point is true (that no one should bow down and worship information that has appeared on a web page), I am amused at the notion that many people (if any) who post here actually do that. The call for a citation is simply a call for evidence that the poster did not invent “facts.” A citation demonstrates that someone else held the same perspective.
However, if you will notice in any serious discussion, no web site is held to be infallible (and many are challenged from the outset.) When some racist drops by from time to time with citations “proving” that blacks are inherently criminal in nature, the usual response is to dismiss the Nazi or Klan or Aryan webiste where the “facts” were posted, then to go into the actual data presented to demonstrate that the numbers (often taken from the FBI or some similar source) have been ripped from their context or have been manipulated.
The same thing happens with more equal battles (say in economics or foreigh relations) where each side can marshall a whole range of sites that support their position. Once the information has been presented, the debaters then challenge the accuracy of the information presented.
I have never seen anyone look at a contrary web site and simply say, “Oh, you have a citation, I must be wrong.”
On the other hand, the posters who persistently make egregious claims, painting all the people of a particular region, country, or political persuasion with broad swipes of calumny while never presenting any evidence for their claims, are pretty regularly scorned–justifiably.
In the end, yes, it does come down to a somewhat subjective appraisal of how “reputable” the cite is. Most people here will accept cites from all the major news sources that are open to public scrutiny. But even then, one must read the article to understand how direct the sources for the story are. If you read a UPI story that begins “several unnamed sources have indicated that there might be…” then that’s not a source of any reliablilty.
Citing is a way of sharing whatever evidence for group perusal. Once the evidence has been made a part of the discussion, it can also be discussed. I don’t think that very many, (if any), people think that just because somethings is on the web that it is absolutely true. But w/o citing, the quality of the evidence cannot be discussed.