Pros of having the burden of proof be on the person who introduces an idea:
The person who introduces an idea generally gets the associated status. Looking up citations is tedious compared to having ideas, at least for me. By putting the burden of proof on the person who has the idea, we create a status incentive for someone to actually look up citations.
The toplevel post vs comment distinction facilitates working harder to create posts than comments. It seems a little awkward to have 2 posts, one that introduces an idea and a later one which provides citations.
Cons:
Maybe some people are better at looking up citations than others.
Maybe the choice is between sharing citation-free ideas and not having them shared at all.
Maybe we think an idea development process that involves bouncing ideas against others early on works better. Before looking up citations, maybe it’s best to check if the idea is worth testing, or if we should really be looking at a slightly different hypothesis. Maybe the idea will be shot down quickly and decisively by a commenter even if lots of citations are provided.
Oh I agree, I was going off on a tangent with my thing (considering the specific scenario where everyone agrees that citations should be looked up at some point)
Pros of having the burden of proof be on the person who introduces an idea:
The person who introduces an idea generally gets the associated status. Looking up citations is tedious compared to having ideas, at least for me. By putting the burden of proof on the person who has the idea, we create a status incentive for someone to actually look up citations.
The toplevel post vs comment distinction facilitates working harder to create posts than comments. It seems a little awkward to have 2 posts, one that introduces an idea and a later one which provides citations.
Cons:
Maybe some people are better at looking up citations than others.
Maybe the choice is between sharing citation-free ideas and not having them shared at all.
Maybe we think an idea development process that involves bouncing ideas against others early on works better. Before looking up citations, maybe it’s best to check if the idea is worth testing, or if we should really be looking at a slightly different hypothesis. Maybe the idea will be shot down quickly and decisively by a commenter even if lots of citations are provided.
I think an important dimension here is what you’re being asked to provide evidence/citations for.
As an over-the-top example:
You didn’t provide a citation for this. So irrational. Much downvote.
Oh I agree, I was going off on a tangent with my thing (considering the specific scenario where everyone agrees that citations should be looked up at some point)