Differences

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

--- lb:opinion:citations [2025-10-26 11:58:31] – ↷ Page moved from playground:opinion:citations to lb:opinion:citations ninjasr
+++ lb:opinion:citations [2025-10-26 20:41:32] (current) – [Explanation] Minor correction. ninjasr
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 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 “Most people dislike pears, but like apples.” This could be misinterpreted as “Many people like apples and others dislike pears.” 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.
+    * 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.
-    * “On average, smoking is harmful to the people around them. Though it can have a small positive effect for the smoker.” -> “Smoking can have a small positive effect for the smoker.” This takes the good and leaves out the bad.
+    * <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.
-    * “There were a number of buildings in the area and now there are just a handful.” -> “There was a church and it's still there.”
+    * <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.
@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 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.
+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 they //are// an academic.
 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.\\