Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:opinion:citations [2025-10-26 11:58:30] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
+++ lb:opinion:citations [2025-10-26 12:05:07] (current) – Minor formatting changes. ninjasr
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Citations don't guarantee Trustworthiness ======
+This is a topic that I've been thinking about for a while, but I decided to finally write about it because I've grown a bit annoyed.
+{{tag>opinion}}
+===== Explanation =====
+Generally, nowadays, citing sources is seen as something you just kinda have to do if you're making any sort of claim.\\
+The general perception is that if you're not citing your sources, you can’t be trusted, because there's no way to verify whether the claim is true or not without a source.
+That, however, is fallacious thinking. I don't know exactly which informal fallacy is at play, but it's definitely the case. I think the closest would be the Appeal to Authority.
+The citation itself does not mean that the claim being made is true or not. All it signals is that there is a ‘source’ for where the information came from. Whether it's true or not cannot be determined from the citation alone.\\
+It's here that the fallacious thinking comes in: you are **assuming** that the information is **true** just because a source is provided.\\
+Keep in mind that you //aren't checking// the source, you just see the little number and assume it must be true.
+The reason this is inherently flawed thinking is because any number of things could “go wrong” with the statement being made and the citation being sourced:
+  * The person might have misinterpreted the information.
+    * Say the original source said <q>“Most people dislike pears, but like apples.”</q> This could be misinterpreted as <q>“Many people like apples and others dislike pears.”</q> The original ‘source’ is implying that the same group of people who dislike pears likes apples, while the claim being made from it is suggesting these are separate groups.
+  * They may be cherry-picking information.
+    * <q>“On average, smoking is harmful to the people around them. Though it can have a small positive effect for the smoker.”</q> -> <q>“Smoking can have a small positive effect for the smoker.”</q> This takes the good and leaves out the bad.
+  * They may outright lie.
+    * <q>“There were a number of buildings in the area and now there are just a handful.”</q> -> <q>“There was a church and it's still there.”</q>
+There are probably more issues, but I just can’t think of them.
+The presence of the citation doesn't make it more reliable, it just makes it slightly easier to check the claim against the source claim.
+But now I'd like to point out that the idea that you can’t verify a claim //without a citation// is strange if you stop to think about it.\\
+Why not?\\
+Why can’t you?\\
+If I say that the population of cats is proportional to humans at 5:1 and, thus, there are too many cats...is my claim impossible to disprove without a citation?
+**Of course not**.
+Citations provide only two very specific upsides that don't make claims with citations inherently more trustworthy:
+  - They make it easier for the researcher to keep track of where they found information and to consequently recall it.
+  - They make it easier for readers to track the flow of information.
+The second one is relevant to the reliability of a claim, but it doesn't guarantee it. And, again, it's generally not useful for the majority of people.
+I'll also point out something from experience: **academics also tend to not cite sources**. I've been to several lectures and seen and read a bunch of presentations from academics. Granted, I study in the humanities, so it's not like I'm doing STEM. However, I've never seen academics cite sources at all.\\
+This has resulted in the quirky situation where if I see someone claim to be an academic online...and they don't cite sources...I'm more inclined to believe them.
+I'd also recommend reading [[http://www.science-and-fiction.org/essays/whats_wrong_with_science_1.html|this]] essay by Thorsten Renk. He goes over the ‘Citation Game’ himself, though I think I approached it from a different angle.\\
+What I think is notable is that, according to Renk, authors don't have the luxury of //not citing sources for not being relevant//. I won't spoil the rest, because if you're one of the people who trusts blindly, you should learn to read.
+==== Citations & Here ====
+Now I'll move onto a thematically related but not directly relevant topic: what about me citing sources on this personal wiki?
+Well, generally, I don't see an issue with not citing sources here. This is partially because what it is I'm talking about is primarily [[lb:media]]. It's not exactly rocket science or medicine.\\
+The other reason is that I //want// to, but not strongly enough to wrestle with the inherent limitations of Dokuwiki. Even with the RefNotes plugin, keeping track of sources and creating citations is a lot more difficult than is even reasonable.
+The other reason I don't see it as a big deal is that I use my own wiki to keep track of information //for myself//. Thus, it needs to be as reliable as I //need it to be for my own purposes//. If it were unreliable, I couldn't use it.
+The other other reason is because of the reasoning I laid out above. The lack of citations doesn't mean it's impossible to verify whether I'm right or wrong, it just means you don't know exactly where I got the information. Which puts us in the same boat, because I often forget where I get my information as well.
+That gets us into the topic of me //wanting to cite stuff//. As I stated above, Dokuwiki is not very pleasant for this kind of activity (and neither is something like Word, frankly), but the bigger issue for me is that I //want// to remember where I got information (see the 1st reason why they're useful).\\
+So I will at some point as part of my effort to also get good at research, but I make no guarantees.
+That's it for now. I may edit this further in the future.