In my opinion, the type of citation that i would consider legitimate varies depending upon the type of claims being made, and the type of information being cited.
For example, there are many rather straightforward and banal questions of fact upon which Wikipedia or FreeRepublic or the Social Worker would probably all be in fairly close agreement, and for which all those sites would constitute a reasonable citation.
Of course, going to the original source is always better than a second- or third-hand source. So if, for example, the Free Republic says, “According to the White House…”, i think it would be better to check whether or not the White House did, in fact, say what they are quoted as saying. The large number of offical websites where primary information (e.g., White House press conferences, offical documents, etc.) can be found means that finding the original source of the information is often not too difficult.
Remember, also, that organisations like the Socialist Worker and Free Republic often get much of their basic information from mainstream news sources such as AP, Reuters, the New York Times, and official and unofficial government sources. Unless you believe that they falt out fabricate things—not entirely beyond the realms of possibility, i’ll concede—then it’s probably reasonable to accept many of their basic issues of fact, especially concerning issues where their information can easily be crossed-checked with other, perhaps more reputable sources.
Of course, in a situation like the current one in Louisiana, where information is coming from a variety of sources, and many of those seem to contradict one another, then it can be problematic working out exactly what went on. And this is exacerbated by the fact that, even if we have the “facts,” different people often interpret the same “facts” in very different ways, based on a variety of factors, including their own political predispositions. Look, for example, at a radical critic of US foreign policy like Noam Chomsky. If you read his books, you’ll see that many—actually most—of his footnotes refer to the same newspapers and magazine articles that everyone else has access to. It’s just that his interpretation differs from that of many other people.
For me, the biggest problem with “citations” on this message board is when someone links to what is essentially an opinion piece or—not so bad—an interpretive piece and presents it as the final word, the ultimate truth, without conceding that reasonable people can differ in their interpretations.
Another thing that chaps my ass is people—and luckily there aren’t too many of them—who insist that a citation be a linkable internet article. I remember that the late, unlamented milroyj once refused to accept a citation i provided because it came from a Lexis/Nexis search and i couldn’t provide him with a direct link to the article. The fact that i listed the newspaper, the date, and the page number of the article was not enough for him. I’ve also seen people who, when directed to books or journal articles, complain that the citation is not good if they can’t get it online. It might surprise some people to know this, but the entire sum of human knowledge is not yet available on the internet.
