Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#211

Post by autokad »

btrettel wrote: post #47

As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed. Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

also people shouldn't blindly be going to links on the internet posted by randos. It would be easy to post a script to write replies on comment threads linking to a malicious site.

its nice to have urls, but I think we all know deep down they wont change much in the grand scheme of things. I know when I see a quote on the internet, its almost assuredly fake, but if I am interested I can always just google it.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#212

Post by mensetmanusman »

edent wrote: post #43
cochne wrote: post #32

I'll start of by saying the author has provided some nice research. However, this particular example is the kind of thing where it doesn't even really matter wether its legitimate or not. The fact that it doesn't attribute it to any particular source makes it almost meaningless. It's basically just saying that some person 100 years ago said "X". Does it really matter if I have a source for that? This content is clear…

The claim is "even a hundred years ago we had prats who didn't want to wear masks because they were embarrassed." This citation shows that, yes, this was a trope even back then.

It’s strange, because a mask can mask identity, so why would you be embarrassed if few can recognize you?

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#213

Post by CM30 »

This is something more online media outlets should taken into consideration, especially for their own articles. Too many think linking out to potential 'competitors' is a bad thing, or make it too difficult to find the source for their data/conclusions.

Newspapers and magazines are especially bad for this, as are YouTube channels and other video format content creators.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#214

Post by modzu »

btrettel wrote: post #47

As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed. Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

what field are you in? this is not my experience; citations follow a standard (chicago, ama, etc) for handling page numbers. there is of course citation in the sense of "i read these 3 books while studying a subject" so they go in even though you are not quoting them. weighted by readers accordingly

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#215

Post by drewda »

On a somewhat related note, here's an enjoyable read about how citations in scholarly papers can sometimes mask shoddy thinking and spread "Academic urban legends":

> Many of the messages presented in respectable scientific publications are, in fact, based on various forms of rumors. Some of these rumors appear so frequently, and in such complex, colorful, and entertaining ways that we can think of them as academic urban legends. The explanation for this phenomenon is usually that authors have lazily, sloppily, or fraudulently employed sources, and peer reviewers and editors have not discovered these weaknesses in the manuscripts during evaluation. To illustrate this phenomenon, I draw upon a remarkable case in which a decimal point error appears to have misled millions into believing that spinach is a good nutritional source of iron. Through this example, I demonstrate how an academic urban legend can be conceived and born, and can continue to grow and reproduce within academia and beyond.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03063127145356...

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#216

Post by mcnamaratw »

staycoolboy wrote: post #142

How are citations not the fallacy of "appeal to authority"? Citations are basically an attempt at X.509 or Certificate Authority "root of trust": follow the certs until you find one we all agree is "trustyworthy". Except in this case, that "someone" may or may not be provable, because the root of trust could potentially go back centuries. I'm not impugning the work of historians, I realize this is part of what they d…

If the citation contains data then using a citation is not an appeal to authority.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#217

Post by hinkley »

btrettel wrote: post #47

As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed. Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

I can't find it but the appropriate XKCD has a character make an outrageous claim and then tells the skeptic to check Wikipedia... in five minutes.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#218

Post by 13415 »

btrettel wrote: post #47

As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed. Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

As an Academic I find the whole discussion and usual Wikipedia style request for sources doubtful and sometimes even comical. Of course I understand that it's often a good thing to provide a source for a claim in online discussions, but it's neither always necessary nor is there always a burden of proof on the person who makes a claim. Especially online people often confuse arguments with explicative discourse, I certainly have made that mistake in the past. If somebody explains something to you, better listen. You should be skeptical of any claims, whether they are in books, newspapers, or online forums. It's not as if peer review or printing books somehow eradicates errors. I've seen logic books full of mistakes and sloppy reasoning.

The most important thing for anyone is to keep a mindset that is aiming towards truth. If someone doesn't have that mindset, no amount of discussion will be fruitful. It will just go round and round in circles and get lost in an orgy of bogus sources. I could virtually prove anything to someone who believes anything that has been written, by selectively looking for the fitting sources.

The lesson I've learned from Usenet: Don't argue with people online, but allow them to teach you.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#219

Post by btrettel »

modzu wrote: post #214
btrettel wrote: post #47

As many of those who have read academic papers know, even claims with citations are often suspicious. Time and time again I've found cited sources that don't say what was claimed. Sometimes, citations are not specific enough (e.g., citing a huge book rather than the specific page with the evidence). So, better than giving a URL would be to give a URL with a "fragment" if possible, i.e., #id. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

what field are you in? this is not my experience; citations follow a standard (chicago, ama, etc) for handling page numbers. there is of course citation in the sense of "i read these 3 books while studying a subject" so they go in even though you are not quoting them. weighted by readers accordingly

I work in fluid dynamics.

Page numbers for an article are standard. Page numbers for a specific piece of information are not. E.g., it's common for someone to write [1] but not [1, p. 528].

In fact, I recently had a typesetter seem confused about my use of the latter style, thinking that the pages referred to the article I wrote rather than the cited article.

Re: Any claim without a URI should be treated as suspicious

#220

Post by dsun179 »

bottled_poe wrote: post #38
gruez wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does adding crypto fix this problem? I presume it's to incentivize peers into retaining and serving the content, but who's going to pay? The author? The viewer? How is either going to work for long tail content that's been abandoned by the author?

Wait, hmm... maybe if we use the blockchain here we can solve those problems too?

Or machine learning?
Post reply on HN