# Validity of Citing Sites **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912 "2003-10-22T15:00:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/61 "2003-10-23T18:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > Note the “etc.” after my examples. It was meant to indicate that there are many other things to consider as well. Of course, my response was just illustrative. We’re not actually debating “mess” as it refers to nation states. > [@](#): > > …but once you agree on the indicators, cites are needed to verify claims of what numbers can be assigned to any indicator. Once you agree on the indicators, the debate is over. It is simply a matter of fact-checking. What’s to argue? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/62 "2003-10-23T18:44:11Z")
**Erislover** : I don’t get your point. Why don’t you outline how you think a debate should go, _san_ cites, on the topic: **Resolved: Iraq is a Mess** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/63 "2003-10-23T18:45:23Z")
Opps: That should be “_sans_ cites”, not “_san_ cites” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/64 "2003-10-23T18:48:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*A question for those who feel providing cites is beneath them - > > Under what circumstances would you accept the bare word of another poster as to the truth of his claims? > \*\* It’s pretty simple, really. As simple as ChasB, if you remember him. There may not be experts on every field here. I don’t claim to be an expert in the computer field. Not compared to some people. But what I _am_, is good enough to tell when someone actually knows what the heck he’s talking about. So, if someone says something’s true, and three other people in related fields say that he knows what he’s talking about, he’s sounding like an expert, his word becomes good. That’s about the size of it for me. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/65 "2003-10-23T18:55:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > \*\*We might have to establish a Site Validity Index for the WWW: > > (10 - highest, 1 - lowest) > > 10 - (theoretically, none) > 9 - Well respected sources of information (i.e. [http://www.britannica.com](http://www.britannica.com)) > 8 - Well respected scientific or research organizations (i.e. [http://www.perldoc.com](http://www.perldoc.com)) > 7 - .gov sites > 6 - .edu sites > 5 - Well respected communities (i.e. [http://www.dmoz.com](http://www.dmoz.com)) > 4 - Well respected message boards (i.e. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb)) > 3 - Respected commentators (i.e. [http://www.nationalreview.com](http://www.nationalreview.com)) > 2 - News media sites > 1 - Joe Blow sites > > Am I even close with this hierarchy? What did I miss? What should be higher / lower? \*\* News sites at 2? I would put them far higher at about 6 or 7: at least the quality ones. Certainly higher than message boards or commentators. Also I don’t think that the National Review is much respected by people who don’t share its slant. A better example of a a widely respected source of commentary would probably be something like Foreign Affairs or The Economist. I would put either of those at about 5 or 6. As for the OP I don’t think there is any problem with Internet sites per se at all. There is certainly a lot of rubbish out there but that’s true of published books as well. There is also a lot of excellent information on the Web. You just have to pick carefully. And even an iffy source can be useful if take with the proper dose of skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2003, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/66 "2003-10-23T19:16:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > I don’t get your point. Why don’t you outline how you think a debate should go, _sans_ cites, on the topic: > > **Resolved: Iraq is a Mess** The question that needs addressing here is: when is any nation-state a mess? Then the question, “Is Iraq like this?” is answerable by anyone willing to obtain the information. For completeness we might list said facts, but listing facts is not debating, it is just listing facts and pointing to transitivity over generalized variables. Some people like to debate what conclusions can be drawn from facts, but I’m not one of them because, IMO, facts can be argued over themselves, in terms of whether studies were complete, unbiased, whether what bias they have affects any or some conclusions, etc. I don’t find that very interesting, myself. What conclusions we draw from facts are only as supportable as the facts themselves, and not all facts (like, say, the _results_ of a study) are equal. A typical instance of citation wars is in gun threads, where the viability of data and studies are themselves called into question rapidly, and the overall question remains unanswered. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/67 "2003-10-24T16:47:26Z")
posted by Grey > [@](#): > > ## Besides I tend to think of cites as quote: > > ## the information I gather and can verify myself on its value for the issue at hand > > the presentation of which allows others with differing perspective to assess their relative worth". How many times do I need to clarify that my information doesn’t origin from websites? That I don’t trust any website, even when it is an “official” one or when it is covering well known journals and publications. I’m so sorry for you that I don’t spend my time on listing/copying/scanning the contenance of my library and everything related. Which goes from books, journals, every sort of publications everybody willing to spend time on it can buy, to information that isn’t that easy acessible and information that isn’t acessible for others at since it is my own. Further: It wouldn’t do you any good to have such listing - which would cover a lot of bandspace here and would get very boring reading in no time - since 99,99999% of these books, journals, publications, other information of all types, are written in languages the SMDB members can’t read. Some exceptions for European languages and maybe some have a background in or knowledge of some Oriental languages but I don’t think this is a majority around here, is it? Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/68 "2003-10-24T16:52:47Z")
erislover, One could first ask 1. " define what is for you “a mess” and explain how you come to such definition. 2. Explain why your definition of “a mess” should count for Iraq. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/69 "2003-10-24T17:11:55Z")
As for “the truth” behind whatever someone writes on message boards like this. 1. There is no such thing as The Truth to begin with 2. Everyone writes about issues coming from personal involvement/study/interest/background/education/perspective/everything else that possibly connects the poster with the issue (make your choice or combine several) so the reader’s “truth” shall be different according the poster’s personal connection with the issue. These two points are already on their own a point worth debating. This board is in my opinion not created to overload it with links to other websites. It is created to debate about a wide range of issues. You can underscore an argument with some link to a website, but you can’t expect others to take that what you take there for The Truth as such. I’m still getting the impression that many posters here believe everything they see on the internet **because** they found it on the internet. Now a question: If I start a debate about say: _The usefulness of interreligious contacts and debate._ Then I give in the OP my opinion about this issue. Next I shall see people coming in the topic and start writing “cite”. Then you shall get my answer: **My post is my cite.** Because my post is my personal opinion/conclusion about the issue. This is not to be found on any other website then this one, where I put it in order to get a debate starting. Is there someone who doesn’t understand this? Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/70 "2003-10-25T03:04:21Z")
As **Dogface** has already posted non web based cites are valid, you just need to note them. And your impression is wrong, the majority of posters in this thread at least do not subscribe to “if it’s written down it must be true”. Everything is open to criticism. Remember no one is saying that _opinion_ needs a citation. If all you wish to do is bestow on us the jewels of your intellect knock yourself out. Also maybe head over to **IMHO** , they’ll love you I’m sure. However, when you start making statements of **fact** in support of your **opinion/position** then you need to be able to provide some measure of backing to those facts. If the basic factual assumptions of your argument are based on flawed information you’d want to know that right? If others are making conclusions based on flawed information you would _want_ to correct their incorrect facts, would you not? The question is how do you do that, using a medium such as this? 1. Credentials. The **Bad Astronomer** or **Una Person** both profess and demonstrate expertise in various areas. Both their posts and the fact that other dopers tend to be able to vouch for their expertise adds to their legitimacy. 2. Posting history Through a history of posts a poster builds up a degree of trust with others on the validity of their presented information. This though tends to reflect a history of posting using accurate… 3. Citations. Facts used to support arguments and that have no direct links to the poster. **There is an expectation that provided citations be from legitimate sources**. Notice that _opinion_ is neither factual nor objective. If you wish to continue the > [@](#): > > my post is my cite routine, expect to be mocked. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/71 "2003-10-28T04:35:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grey \* > \*\* > > 1. Credentials. > The **Bad Astronomer** or **Una Person** both profess and demonstrate expertise in various areas. Both their posts and the fact that other dopers tend to be able to vouch for their expertise adds to their legitimacy. \*\* While that’s a good supporting sign, as you say, let me reiterate that it’s not a Stamp of Accuracy. I screw up lots of times on my site, sometimes in a big way. If I think it’s big enough, I admit the mistake, fix it, and link to the old wrong essay (if it’s a minor error, I just fix it). The issue of site veracity is an important one. Some people say that you can trust a .edu site more than a .com. That might be a nice general rule, but it’s silly to slavishly adhere to it. My own site is a .com, and John Mack (a guy at Harvard who thinks people are abducted by aliens) can have a .edu site. And yes, I think his conclusions are unreliable. I think this issue will never be resolved. It’ll just have to be something you have to figure out for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/72 "2003-10-28T10:38:06Z")
And you people overlook that 1. I don’t take my information from the internet (how many times must I say this) 2. 99% of my information doesn’t origin in English languaged works/articles/publications/sources. (how many times must I repeat this) As I said: even if I would undertake the task of posting here the entire contnance of my libraries - which would take a lot of bandspace on this website - what good is that to you. I already posted some works written in English that I recommend when people who asked for them. Yet what good does it to the general poster on this website when I start posting titles they don’t even understand because they are in a language they don’t master. Is it so extremely impossible to imagine that when I studied, those classes/courses were NOT in English, the reference books we read were NOT in English, the SOURCES we studied on and where I still study on are most certainly NOT in English ever. What on earth is so extremely difficult in understanding that the world isn’t WRITTEN IN ENGLISH? Do you really think that I have time and that I feel the urge to go looking all over the internet to find publications in English that eventually can be compared with what I talk about -and with the information I gather - in order to serve you at will? Publications that I then can’t even examine on their accuracy? Well, the day I start doing that you may send an ambulance to lock me away in a madhouse. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/73 "2003-10-28T10:46:03Z")
And grey, so I understand that you believe that what you find on the internet or in the media is “fact” and not opinion? Why? Because it is written on the internet? Because it is written in English? Because you “know” the “facts” and thus you are certain you don’t read an “opinion”? Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/74 "2003-10-28T11:17:26Z")
Do you not read previous posts? Are you being intentional obtuse? Did you miss the whole > [@](#): > > ## Besides I tend to think of cites as quote: > > ## the information I gather and can verify myself on its value for the issue at hand > > the presentation of which allows others with differing perspective to assess their relative worth". or perhaps you missed > [@](#): > > As Dogface has already posted non web based cites are valid, you just need to note them. And your impression is wrong, the majority of posters in this thread at least do not subscribe to “if it’s written down it must be true”. Everything is open to criticism. or maybe … > [@](#): > > However, when you start making statements of fact in support of your opinion/position then you need to be able to provide some measure of backing to those facts. If the basic factual assumptions of your argument are based on flawed information you’d want to know that right? If others are making conclusions based on flawed information you would want to correct their incorrect facts, would you not? Personally I could care less if you entire scholarly library consisted on nothing but Sumerian translations of the Cat in the Hat. Seeing your remarkable command of the English language despite your 1. Dyslexia 2. Non Latin Alphabet keyboard 3. Two fingered typing 4. Lack of a spell checker I find it difficult to believe you can not grasp the idea of providing the rest of us with at least a reference when you make factual claims. You could easily, could you not, provide a translated title, or at least the author’s name? If you have no actual facts then preface your statement with “In my view” or “Personally I feel”. People will then given them the weight they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/75 "2003-10-28T22:58:04Z")
A syllogism: 1. Aldebaran says that websites are inferior and unreliable sources. 2. Aldebaran’s comment was posted on a website. 3. Therefore, …(Oh hell, I haven’t the heart. You finish it.) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/76 "2003-10-28T23:02:20Z")
Okay, I’ll try again. A syllogism: 1. Aldebaran says that websites are inferior and unreliable sources. 2. Aldebaran’s comments were posted on a website. 3. Therefore, what can a stupid American woman reading a website possibly know? ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/77 "2003-10-28T23:08:59Z")
Zoe, I do hope for you that you don’t take what is written on message board for nothing but the truth? If you want to find out if what anybody writes here is for you reflecting for the truth, then I think you should do your own research in the issue at hand. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/78 "2003-10-28T23:09:13Z")
Zoe, I do hope for you that you don’t take what is written on message board for nothing but the truth? If you want to find out if what anybody writes here is for you reflecting the truth, then I think you should do your own research in the issue at hand. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/79 "2003-10-29T03:28:28Z")
Aldebaran, I was brought up to “consider the source.” That means I must not believe anything that I hear or read _automatically_. That includes books, professional journals, websites, newspapers, my parents, preachers and academicians. I am \* likely\* to trust some sources more than others. That makes sense – even in websites. If a source is usually so reliable that it makes the news when it makes a mistake, then it is probably a reasonably reliable resource. It would definitely make a difference to me to know if someone posting at a website based his information on something that he read at the BBC or something that he read at Fox News. Surely that is understandable to you? The person could still be mistaken. BBC could be mistaken. Fox News could be correct. But hey, what are the odds? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912/80 "2003-10-29T04:09:46Z")
Excellent question. I don’t know much. But when I find myself in a discussion where I do have knowledge, I include textbook and literary cites in addition to the Site Cites. I’ve seen some pretty silly things on websites. Just because “it’s on the web” doesn’t make it true. (I know, stating the obvious, but based on a few posters I’ve seen here, they haven’t “gotten” this). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/validity-of-citing-sites/208912.md?page=3)