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

251–260 of 282 posts

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

#251

Post by duxup »

im3w1l wrote: post #82
Legogris wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s very worthwhile; it allows readers to judge the legitimacy and relevance of sources for claims made.

A big gripe I have about youtube links: I can't learn anything about the video from the link. Once in a blue moon a youtube source is actually good. But the odds are so low that I often wont even bother clicking.

Agreed.

YouTube links are automatic ignore for me. Video that isn't a sound byte or "here is that thing happening exactly" is a horrible way to consume information related to a discussion.

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

#252

Post by streb-lo »

HillRat wrote: post #250
streb-lo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read the linked IMF paper but the summary seems to directly support the claim: >The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion).

I assume the parent poster takes issue with the definition of “subsidy” in the paper, which is probably better called “unpriced externalities” in the context. (It’s still IMO a subsidy, but it’s not what we intuitively think of as such, and thus the data point is rather misleading when quoted in the press.)

Fair enough point.

I would argue that you can't really take issue with calling it a subsidy unless you're willing to take issue with the unpriced externalities.

If a government refuses to price them in it's effectively the same as directly subsidizing the present generations at expense of future ones.

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

#253

Post by aflag »

duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

I think it makes sense to put links for those who read. I disconsider a lot of stuff because I can't be bothered checking. If your goal is having a great discussion, then the links may have little effect. However, if your goal is to inform (including all the people who will not reply), then providing links is great.

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

#254

Post by edanm »

marcusverus wrote: post #233
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/…

There is an additional trick that the media use which is generally referred to as 'the media sourcing itself'. To do so, article A will make a claim, and as evidence will cite article B. Upon inspection of Article B, you find that it is merely making the same claim. Frequently, article B will cite the supporting evidence, but not always. Here's an example: A top-level Ars Technica article claims "the US fossil fuel i…

I mean, that's not a trick. That's totally legitimate. Obviously it means there's a chain of trust here - if Forbes is incorrect, then articles that cite it will also be incorrect. But that's the same as when citing an original paper.

(Obviously there is some difference - two different takes on the same original source are better than one take on a source, and another take on the first take - but it's not invalid or wrong to do this IMO.)

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

#255

Post by ducaale »

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/…

A youtuber demonstrating how hard it is to verify a citation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjlKIjLWq-Y

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

#256

Post by verylittlemeat »

Trufa wrote: post #14

Completely tangential, I never understand why people use URI instead of URL. He obviously means URL and goes an abstraction lower. You could also say without the corresponding internet uniquely scheme or whatever. Sorry for the rant. But I am missing something?

Saying URI instead of URL may be technically correct sometimes but it does seem needlessly confusing.

Almost like it's done intentionally to get smug satisfaction when being asked "what's a URI?" I guess that can be a bad faith interpretation but come on who doesn't know plenty of people like that in real life.

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

#257

Post by tracker1 »

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/…

Even in research papers... often the summary isn't supported by the paper, it's often over-stated, simplified or outright lying.

Also, this is a huge part of why I don't like paywalls for research paid for by govt funding. It's really easy to get a summary, but actually getting to read the thing takes work, money or access that the general public doesn't have.

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

#258

Post by tracker1 »

edanm wrote: post #254
marcusverus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an additional trick that the media use which is generally referred to as 'the media sourcing itself'. To do so, article A will make a claim, and as evidence will cite article B. Upon inspection of Article B, you find that it is merely making the same claim. Frequently, article B will cite the supporting evidence, but not always. Here's an example: A top-level Ars Technica article claims "the US fossil fuel i…

I mean, that's not a trick. That's totally legitimate. Obviously it means there's a chain of trust here - if Forbes is incorrect, then articles that cite it will also be incorrect. But that's the same as when citing an original paper. (Obviously there is some difference - two different takes on the same original source are better than one take on a source, and another take on the first take - but it's not invalid or…

I'm sure there is often a case of incompetence at play... however, I'm also sure there is often an amount of dishonesty to say the least and outright evil at worst when news organizations do this.

Another problem is not understanding the differences that statistics play in terms of how those statistics are gathered (controlled experiment vs epidemiological study for example).

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

#259

Post by aflag »

clairity wrote: post #133
duxup wrote: post #59

I hate URL fights. I give little extra value to people providing links with their clams. I largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time. Discussion on the internet is broken in most places (HN is less broken than most). I find little value providing URLs. Much of the time I provide them, few folks seem to read it, fewer actually want to read it in an intellectually…

furthermore, calling for citations is primarily an expression of disbelief, not a furthering of discussion. either the argument was indeed faulty, in which case the responder should call out the weakness directly, or the responder has no specific objection but wants simply to object. it's lazy and should be discouraged (e.g., downvoted). another lazy response is providing links without summarizing the linked content,…

Memes can be used for disinformation, so sharing only what you can verify makes you a good citizen.

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

elliekelly wrote: post #221
btrettel wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a HTTP status code for pages which were deleted: 410 Gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes#4xx_... This was famously used by Mark Pilgrim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim#%22Disappearance%...

Has anyone ever seen this in the wild? I didn’t even know it existed. Who knew there were so many different status codes.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN