Hacker News Reader

Comment by NameNickHN | Hacker News Reader

Sources?

I downvoted you. I'm really tired of the single-word, zero-effort "sources" or "citation" meme. It's not wikipedia here, and it creates a hostile environment to demand every two-line comment to be sourced like an academic paper.

Please engage with the comment and ask for clarification if there's something you think is unclear. If you find something hard to believe, say so, and why. If you're just genuinely interested, ask for a book recommendation. But please write a full sentence.

I downvoted you. I think the request for a full sentence is unnecessary because the one-word comment "sources?" effectively communicates an understandable message in a compact form. A full sentence would be a more standard (and, some would say, perhaps a more polite?) form of doing the same, for sure. But I don't think more syntax automatically adds more value in this particular case.

What is being asked for is a source for the parent comment. You say you're tired of the single-word, zero-effort "sources" or "citation" meme. I can't follow that reasoning. Minimally, as I work in academia, I find the request for a citation normal. But also, I cannot agree with your opinion that only those comments can be valid that require from the author an effort that is greater than what you define as zero. I would think that your parent is actually interested in engaging in a discussion, but would like to do some background checks first - hence the request for sources.

I don't find that asking for a source is creating a hostile environment, either. You've summed up possible reasons why someone might ask for sources in your second paragraph, so I have no doubts you understood the motivations of your parent.

It's not quite clear to me, whether you're complaining about the content of your parent's post (that they are asking for sources) or the form of the post (that it's just a one-word post). In any event, I don't think it's fair to downvote someone because they ask for sources, just because that request was not written in a way that pleases you.

EDIT: On second thought, I feel my comment is a bit wanky. I wish I could re-upvote you, I think I acted prematurely. I'm sorry. :-/

Don't worry. My comment got more upvotes than it deserves.

First point, HN is not academia, it's (mostly) intelligent people discussing interesting subjects. In such discussions, it's perfectly fine to make contributions that you can't immediately source. It's, of course, also fine to contest those, and if someone says you're wrong, and has sources, well, you should be prepared to concede the point. But even in academia, I strongly doubt that you've ever received a request for sources from a perfect stranger that didn't explain exactly which point they were interested in.

Second point, form and style is important. Politeness is important. They are cornerstones of civil discourse. If we don't maintain a civil environment, intelligent people leave, and HN turns into the regular echo chamber that are par for the course on the Internet. Intelligent people interested in real discourse can and should explain their request when asking someone else to elaborate.

Third point - yes, I could guess at a range of possible motivations, but I don't actually know which one it is. The range goes from "I think you're wrong and probably an idiot, but I'm not going to bother explaining why" to "wow, that's a fascinating thought, where I can learn more". Those are vastly different responses - one obviously has no place in civil discourse. My gut feeling is that one word requests for sources are more often towards the former than the latter, but obviously I can't know. Even if my gut feeling is wrong, it still creates grating uncertainly: Is this person a troll who's out to undermine my credibility on the cheap, or is it a genuinely interested person who just want to learn more.

I tend to think that politeness and tact are value added concepts, especially in discourse.

Being terse is a good idea sometimes, but I'm not sure those times are as frequent as it actually occurs.

Sometimes people ask for sources because they are genuinely interested in what you have said and would like to learn more about the topic!

Sure, the comment you replied to made that point as well. The proper response to your comment is already essentially what mseebach wrote, so I can only recommend that you go read it again and perhaps ask about a part you found unclear...

If someone makes a comment that sounds like they state a fact, I want to know who or what they are quoting. That's usually how it's being done in academia. I don't know why some people think that HN, or any other forum for that matter, isn't worth doing the same. You can't just throw something in and expect people to take it.

Merely referencing something written or said by somebody else, even if fancy academic titles and degrees are involved, in no way affects the validity of whatever is being claimed.

It's trivial to write something that's blatantly incorrect, to add some obscure references that sound good (they may not necessarily even be related, and if they're hard to access, nobody will bother to check them), and then to pretend that such claims have merit. Sometimes this happens unintentionally, when the referenced material is taken to be correct, when it actually isn't.

A lot of people here and in other online discussion forums are hostile to the "citations please" attitude because these people have experienced academia first hand, and know that references are often quite worthless. In many fields, they're more about adulating prominent members of the community than they are about making claims more robust. It ends up being a wasteful activity to engage in, for the most part.

Not the OP, but this theme (Germany as economic powerhouse, Germany having a large population, Germany being more organized, than say, Russia) is the main theme in Brendan Simms's book "Europe The struggle for supremacy 1453 to the present). You could read that. Its about 500 pages (about a year a page!) and I'm cautious about some of the points, but I figure it will back up the OP.

Churchhill's post second world war writings also cover this, but don't make the full claim the OP makes.

Henry Kissenger's Diplomacy . I have heard that he is somewhat competent.

Competent on setting genocides, destroying democracies and lying to the whole world about it? Nice source you have there....

Kissinger is not a good guy. He is, however, competent, and Diplomacy is very much worth reading. Although it probably doesn't leave you a nicer person.

Ugh. You don't have to agree with Kissinger's personal or political views to acknowledge that he's an incredibly high-quality source, both from a scholastic and experiential perspective.

Don't hate the players, hate the game.

Kissinger was alarmingly effective at what he did.

Wow I am being downvoted all over the place, even in old posts... Btw, my point was that someone that achieved horrible things through (among other things) lying, should never be a source. Is not only about him: Lying was and is a fundamental aspect of his profession. And Yes, he was very effective. And Yes, also both a War criminal and a Peace criminal. An effective one though.

You're being downvoted because your comment was textbook ad hominem.

Err... when discussing about an individual and if he is a good source or not, any valid position HAS to be ad hominem. Am I wrong?

I have come across no book that better explains the how and why off the world than Diplomacy. Its one of the few books I've ever found really worthwhile to read.

I really, strongly recommend you to read "The Prize", by Daniel Yergin. Won the Pulitzer. If you want to understand the world and how it works, and the REAL reasons for the History to be what it is, this is it. Best book in existence for Diplomacy, global economy and geopolitics. You will be amazed. You will never look at the world the same way again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com