You can’t offer citations for spending more than a decade researching, reading, and communicating/speaking to experts about a topic. There is no source to cite. I am a source.
Utter horseshit. I’ve spent slightly less than a decade researching, reading, and communicating with experts about methods for proteomics, and also applied Bayesian statistics. On these subjects, I too am a source—and I can drown you in citations. In this day and age, anyone with a legitimate claim to be a source on a subject ought to be able to do likewise.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
The facts I referenced don’t require access to university-library-level facilities to locate; if you can read the post, you have Internet access and a browser capable of taking you to any number of search engines suitable for the task.
As for the reason why you should consider the statements worth attempting to verify: I said them. Even if they were wrong (which they are not), finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site. Fact-checking me should be a matter of course.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
I find it interesting that you consider it trivial for others to verify the information with a web search, but, for you, it is a matter of “hunting down citations”. It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone, without calling people morons for asking questions when it should be easy for you to just answer the question. This is why I said earlier that it is unfortunate that you chose not to support a well written article with citations.
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor
Seconded. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to happen before we all get turned into tiny molecular smiley faces by a rogue AI, I would settle for a “Don’t show me comments by [Annoyance]” option in my preferences. The signal-to-noise ratio is generally just too low to be worth it, yet I find the noise sucking me in anyway.
It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
The sources from which I learned the information would be difficult for me to locate, even if I remembered all of them.
It’s trivially easy for you to find sources that confirm my claim, though. It’s the difference between sources and the sources.
I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone,
Given the choice between accurately relaying the truth, and refraining from offending, I prefer to accurately relay the truth. Sometimes offending is required.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
I think you forget the economics of the burden of time investment. You spent the energy to write the original article, a small amount of additional energy for source material would have greatly increased any expected effects (that I can imagine you holding to originally write said article), and overall it is far more effecient for one person—namely, you, the author, to invest some additional energy into your article, rather than having every potential reader go and wastefully recapitulate the search on their own.
So not only is your approach rude, it is also ineffecient.
Utter horseshit. I’ve spent slightly less than a decade researching, reading, and communicating with experts about methods for proteomics, and also applied Bayesian statistics. On these subjects, I too am a source—and I can drown you in citations. In this day and age, anyone with a legitimate claim to be a source on a subject ought to be able to do likewise.
And I can do that. But I have no interest for hunting down citations for information which you can verify for yourself with a trivial investment of time and energy.
The facts I referenced don’t require access to university-library-level facilities to locate; if you can read the post, you have Internet access and a browser capable of taking you to any number of search engines suitable for the task.
As for the reason why you should consider the statements worth attempting to verify: I said them. Even if they were wrong (which they are not), finding evidence of that and displaying it would be quite a coup for anyone who dislikes me enough to want to eliminate me from this site. Fact-checking me should be a matter of course.
I find it interesting that you consider it trivial for others to verify the information with a web search, but, for you, it is a matter of “hunting down citations”. It should be easier for the expert to find the sources.
I, for one, am not interested in driving you from this site. I would rather see you become a better contributor, more capable of explaining your ideas without gratuitously offending everyone, without calling people morons for asking questions when it should be easy for you to just answer the question. This is why I said earlier that it is unfortunate that you chose not to support a well written article with citations.
Seconded. Nonetheless, in the absence of any evidence that this is likely to happen before we all get turned into tiny molecular smiley faces by a rogue AI, I would settle for a “Don’t show me comments by [Annoyance]” option in my preferences. The signal-to-noise ratio is generally just too low to be worth it, yet I find the noise sucking me in anyway.
The sources from which I learned the information would be difficult for me to locate, even if I remembered all of them.
It’s trivially easy for you to find sources that confirm my claim, though. It’s the difference between sources and the sources.
Given the choice between accurately relaying the truth, and refraining from offending, I prefer to accurately relay the truth. Sometimes offending is required.
Giving citations would have relayed truth and avoided offending. It follows that offending, in this case, was not “required”.
I think you forget the economics of the burden of time investment. You spent the energy to write the original article, a small amount of additional energy for source material would have greatly increased any expected effects (that I can imagine you holding to originally write said article), and overall it is far more effecient for one person—namely, you, the author, to invest some additional energy into your article, rather than having every potential reader go and wastefully recapitulate the search on their own.
So not only is your approach rude, it is also ineffecient.