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

71–80 of 282 posts

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

#71

Post by melvinroest »

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/…

This is exactly why I submitted [1] to HN, coincidentally a few hours ago. IMO, assertions should be computable (if possible) and backed by data.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23896279

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

#72

Post by jakelazaroff »

Aerroon wrote: post #44
dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #15

I would've agreed with this a bit more if we hadn't started banning content we don't like from the internet. Here I am without a link, but chasing away groups we don't agree with to the dark side of the web makes it very convenient for the current political saints to shape our views. I take any claim with URIs or without, try to think about who gains from such perspectives, weigh it with past experiences. I'd hate to…

> I'd hate to just see a URI and go "OK, I am convinced ty" and automatically pick up the pitchforks against those without. Something to particularly consider are circular references. If you make the reference graph large enough then it's easy to fool people into thinking that there is a valid source for a claim when there actually isn't one. All you have are references that refer to one another. It gets particularly…

I don't think you even need a large graph! People have observed this happening with just two nodes, where one of the nodes is Wikipedia [1] — some website states information they learned on (or copied from) Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia cites that website as a primary source.

[1] https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wikipedia-citogenesis-c...

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

#73

Post by sukilot »

corty wrote: post #67
wjnc wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I wrong to suppose that L is locator and I is indicator, thus I being a more broadly term and a somewhat nerdy term for Source?

L is locator, I is identifier. URLs are a subset of URIs. Both start with a schema (something:...), but URIs lack the information about the location and way to get at a resource. The canonical example for identifier-but-not-location is an ISBN or DOI. That interpretation however requires a very peculiar interpretation of "location", because imho "where can I read about that" can precisely be answered by "ISBN ...". T…

URIs can lack the information. Not necessarily.

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

#74

Post by 082349872349872 »

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…

Page 58 of "The Art of Conversing With Men" (an 1805 translation of a 1788 work by Knigge) shows that trolls were a thing in the eighteenth century:

> "There are people who pretend to know every thing better than others, contradict every one, frequently against their own conviction, merely for the sake of disputing. There are others who are fond of speaking in parodoxes, and accustomed to maintain assertions which no sensible man can take seriously in the sense in which they utter them, from no other motive than to provoke contradiction; there are finally others whom the French call querelleurs (wranglers,) that studiously seek opportunities to engage in personal disputes..."

After saying "Don't Feed The Trolls", a phrase on page 59 shows that eighteenth century mores did differ from twenty-first: "...it is extremely wrong to use against a wrangler any other weapon than contempt, or at most a cane, if he carry his impudence too far..."

https://books.google.ch/books?id=PtQGAAAAcAAJ&printsec=front...

original available at https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/knigge/umgang/chap005.html §8

> "Es gibt Menschen, die alles besser wissen wollen, allem widersprechen, was man vorbringt, oft gegen eigne Überzeugung widersprechen, um nur das Vergnügen zu haben, disputieren zu können; andre setzen eine Ehre darin, Paradoxa zu sprechen, Dinge zu behaupten, die kein Vernünftiger irgend ernstlich also meinen kann, bloß damit man mit ihnen streiten solle; endlich noch andre, die man Querelleurs, Stänker nennt, suchen vorsätzlich Gelegenheit zu persönlichem Zanke"

> "...und der hat doppelt unrecht, der gegen einen sogenannten Stänker mit andern Waffen als mit Verachtung, oder, wenn es ihm gar zu nahe gelegt wird, anders als mit einem geschmeidigen spanischen Rohre kämpft..."

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

#75

Post by zentiggr »

soared wrote: post #60
raxxorrax wrote: post #10

Judge me all you want, but I would have clicked on "dirty hippy vibes"... Honestly, I don't really believe in ubiquitous misinformation being as a large problem as it is made out to be. Everyone arguing for more content regulation had their own motivations or was in some kind of panic. There will always be people misinformed on the net. Doesn't mean I want a babysitter cleaning everything up, even if I thought they w…

The majority of “misinformation” I’ve seen (entirely on reddit) isn’t straight up lies. It’s more like reposting an old article on a current topic or leaving out information. When Harvard announced remote class plans, Reddit had a front page article on r/all about it - but it was an article that was a month old about their old plan. It would be so easy for people to read that title (old info), have their friend ask i…

Well, that's a bit broad interpretation of 'manipulated'.

If someone legitimately didn't know that there was more recent information, and made that post, it would be reasonable to post the more up to date info in whatever way makes it most helpful.

Any information you get from anywhere but your own senses needs to be checked in proportion to its timeliness, relevance, sources, bias, all the usual.

It's only that the current Internet speed has so much potentially coming at you that makes it a more complicated triage plan.

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

#76

Post by moultano »

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…

Arguments are for the spectators.

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

#78

Post by SkyBelow »

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 largely given up providing links to information when called out as well. It's not worth the time.

Demanding citations you don't plan to read, to either waste a person's time or to make them look unreliable, is a tactic I've seen used so often I normally don't care to provide links. Instead, I'll just point out some 'so you agree with my argument but doubt data backs it up?' at which point, if they respond, it'll be a negative indicating a link wasn't relevant except to waste my time.

Edit: To clarify, I mean discussions in other sites.

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

#79

Post by dontcarethrow2 »

greggyb wrote: post #49
dontcarethrow2 wrote: post #15

I would've agreed with this a bit more if we hadn't started banning content we don't like from the internet. Here I am without a link, but chasing away groups we don't agree with to the dark side of the web makes it very convenient for the current political saints to shape our views. I take any claim with URIs or without, try to think about who gains from such perspectives, weigh it with past experiences. I'd hate to…

I don't read the article as saying: URI == trust claims of content Rather, it is saying that: URI provides strong evidence that the content legitimately comes from the named source. And more specifically: If the content does not have a URI, you should put little weight on the attribution. Evaluating the validity of the claims is always left as an exercise for the reader.

I didn't want to imply we automatically trust it more, but just skimming through a thread I realize that thats what usually happens. It is likely because I don't consume content in such a way (I am guilty of just reading the headline sometime and jumping to personal conclusions) but to even go through a normal thread it will feel very tiring to go and validate all claims.

It sounds very lazy of me but I usually just don't trust the web in general. I don't really have anything valuable on my computer but I still get scared some site will serve me malware. So now to get through a normal discussion we will have linked sources and discussions about the sources (with more required sources ofc). When do we get to the meat of the content? I realize HNers are more capable in digging through sources, but I'd like to think the rest of the users are more lazy-scared like me, so I am going off of that experience.

And ofcourse wild claims without any sources will always be ringing bells for me, I just want to hear the same amount of bells with the sourced claims as well.

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

#80

Post by zentiggr »

082349872349872 wrote: post #74
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…

Page 58 of "The Art of Conversing With Men" (an 1805 translation of a 1788 work by Knigge) shows that trolls were a thing in the eighteenth century: > "There are people who pretend to know every thing better than others, contradict every one, frequently against their own conviction, merely for the sake of disputing. There are others who are fond of speaking in parodoxes , and accustomed to maintain assertions which n…

It is a bit of an art to separate those who are discussing a point for sake of clarity or persuasion, from these bastards whose only goal is to get a rise out of you or consume your time with their own amusement.

Disengaging from those conversations is easier though. Don't answer, walk away, just stop playing their game. Although there is a part of me that wants to shout them down and ridicule them, that plays right into their bs as well.

Sigh. Hell is other people.

Post reply on HN