Toribash
Original Post
Citing sources
Lets talk about citing sources on the discussion board. I'll start by saying, if you're going to cite a wiki article you better scroll down to their notes and check their citations. If they are using unreliable sources, obscure news blogs, biased news networks, or better yet have no citation or references. Then you should probably dig through their notes then go read the articles that apply to your argument and use them instead of the wiki page as a whole.

Second, answer websites, forums, and personal blogs based on opinions are not things to reference. I think citing any of those should be grounds to delete a post.

Third, not citing a source. Stahp. I don't care if at the end you just say its from personal experience, but you better be able to back it. I'll give you an example:

"Rieslings pair well with most pork dishes"
I drink wine.(Wrong)
I've been a wine drinker for years(Passable)
I was a waiter in a fine dining establishment, we learned about wine pairings through a three day wine seminar.(Good)
I worked as a wine connoisseur for many years at a fine dining establishment(Best)

You don't need a study or an article to prove it, just tell us what you found in your experience and what your experience is.

I understand somethings are personal opinion, if that is the case then say it."In my opinion" Is a great way to start your sentence. Some discussions will be mostly based on opinions others you will have people throwing facts out left and right. If its a discussion with a lot of room for opinions then just try to make sure no one will take what you said as a factual statement.


/discuss because I've seen yahoo answers cited and it makes me upset.
Originally Posted by Jakeway View Post
Lets talk about citing sources on the discussion board. I'll start by saying, if you're going to cite a wiki article you better scroll down to their notes and check their citations. If they are using unreliable sources, obscure news blogs, biased news networks, or better yet have no citation or references. Then you should probably dig through their notes then go read the articles that apply to your argument and use them instead of the wiki page as a whole.

Second, answer websites, forums, and personal blogs based on opinions are not things to reference. I think citing any of those should be grounds to delete a post.

Third, not citing a source. Stahp. I don't care if at the end you just say its from personal experience, but you better be able to back it. I'll give you an example:

"Rieslings pair well with most pork dishes"
I drink wine.(Wrong)
I've been a wine drinker for years(Passable)
I was a waiter in a fine dining establishment, we learned about wine pairings through a three day wine seminar.(Good)
I worked as a wine connoisseur for many years at a fine dining establishment(Best)

You don't need a study or an article to prove it, just tell us what you found in your experience and what your experience is.

I understand somethings are personal opinion, if that is the case then say it."In my opinion" Is a great way to start your sentence. Some discussions will be mostly based on opinions others you will have people throwing facts out left and right. If its a discussion with a lot of room for opinions then just try to make sure no one will take what you said as a factual statement.


/discuss because I've seen yahoo answers cited and it makes me upset.

So first you're saying that specialists in a certain field are allowed to talk from personal experience (in your case, a sommelier), and then you go and say that Yahoo! answers don't count as plausible sources? How can you know that the person answering the the Yahoo! question isn't experienced on the field?
f=m*a syens
They might be experts, they might not be. At least if you say you're a fighter pilot here on a discussion about planes we can ask questions and come to our own conclusion about how much shit you're full of. I guess I was under the assumption that people wouldn't claim to be experts on a subject on the discussion board of Toribash if they didn't have the knowledge to back it up. On Yahoo answers you can just post the 2nd link on google and then cite yourself as a launch coordinator for NASA.
Originally Posted by Jakeway View Post
I guess I was under the assumption that people wouldn't claim to be experts on a subject on the discussion board of Toribash if they didn't have the knowledge to back it up. On Yahoo answers you can just post the 2nd link on google and then cite yourself as a launch coordinator for NASA.

So you can pass off as a specialist on Yahoo! answers, but not on the ToriBash forums? It's a different internet, right? Closed.

*edit: Thread reopened on the request of another user.
Last edited by Arglax; Sep 2, 2013 at 03:30 PM.
f=m*a syens
Well I was kind of talking about like in a thread a basher came in said he had his degree in a subject relating to the topic then backed that with substantial knowledge on the matter.

Anyway this is not a debate style discussion(I'm sure people will turn it into one though). Lets go with some constructive criticism and your thoughts on proper citing on this board.
Last edited by Jakeway; Sep 2, 2013 at 11:51 PM.
Originally Posted by Jakeway View Post
Well I was kind of talking about like in a thread a basher came in said he had his degree in a subject relating to the topic then displayed backed that with substantial knowledge on the matter.

I think this is a very important part of the way this discussion board works. For example in a recent thread hanz0 stepped in and lay down a lot of knowledge in a field that he is qualified to speak about. It was a really great thread. A lot of the threads in this forum ride on opinion, and none of us are really qualified.

In threads where expert knowledge is not brought to hand, there are a few ways things can go.
A) Randomly spouting opinions and ignoring all facts: http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=419884
B) Heavy use of varied citations and second hand knowledge (with salt): http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423511

Thread A doesn't work because people are too invested in to their opinion. When shown the facts, they just can't bear it, they become adversarial. Thread B (so far) has worked nicely because the focus has been on gathering information and discussing the issue, rather than determining who is right.

It's not great to just take someone's opinion as fact, even if they say they are qualified. However everyone's opinion should be respected the way hanz0's was in the first thread, and everyone should make use of citations when establishing facts.


A few years ago this forum used to be purely discussion, because we had a dedicated adversarial board (debate), but when the boards were merged the rules were essentially put in favour of adversarial instead of discussion. I don't think it was a very good move.
A few years ago this forum used to be purely discussion, because we had a dedicated adversarial board (debate), but when the boards were merged the rules were essentially put in favour of adversarial instead of discussion. I don't think it was a very good move.

I didn't know there were two distinct discussion and debate boards. Would be nice to see that again.

Some subjects are pretty interesting to talk about or read, but most of the time it turns into some "crappy debate form" and someone trying to win the discussion or something... that mostly pisses me off and makes me adopt a semi-aggressive tone.
I'm around to share a point of view, because the principle of discussing is sharing -knowledge, state of mind or point of views etc...- not proving something right or wrong.

I'm generally trying to expose my ideas so people can considere them, and think about it. It's none of my concern if they agree or not. But there's always some smart boy trying to discredit one's words, leading to endless justifications and pointless debate between a bunch of deaf actors, bringing-up "debate jargon", measuring arguments, asking for citations (ahem) and implying someone can't think by himself. It sometimes makes me wanna slap people in the face with a dead fish.

Concretly it gives something like this :
>Happy to post something and share a point of view with people of the community.
>Semi-aggressive condescending answer
>Escalation of retarded arguments and camping positions.
Last edited by deprav; Sep 3, 2013 at 06:31 AM.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
I think this is a very important part of the way this discussion board works. For example in a recent thread hanz0 stepped in and lay down a lot of knowledge in a field that he is qualified to speak about. It was a really great thread. A lot of the threads in this forum ride on opinion, and none of us are really qualified.

In threads where expert knowledge is not brought to hand, there are a few ways things can go.
A) Randomly spouting opinions and ignoring all facts: http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=419884
B) Heavy use of varied citations and second hand knowledge (with salt): http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=423511

Thread A doesn't work because people are too invested in to their opinion. When shown the facts, they just can't bear it, they become adversarial. Thread B (so far) has worked nicely because the focus has been on gathering information and discussing the issue, rather than determining who is right.

It's not great to just take someone's opinion as fact, even if they say they are qualified. However everyone's opinion should be respected the way hanz0's was in the first thread, and everyone should make use of citations when establishing facts.

These are some excellent points.

I feel like a lot of it is context-based. If you're making a major claim or trying to rebut someone's points then yeah, you probably want to cite some credible sources even if you're qualified to speak on a particular field.

In the thread that you linked, I felt comfortable going without sources in several of my posts for one major reason: Because I have an education and experience in that particular field, I felt like I wasn't so much 'debating' as disseminating knowledge that was necessary to understand and thereby discuss the topic. Because I was reasonably qualified to speak on that particular topic, I knew that many of the references and papers I was drawing from were way too technical for the average user, and it was therefore easier for me to simply summarize the pertinent information in layman's terms. Could I have properly cited all the information I posted? Yeah, but all it would have done was a. reestablish my credibility and b. confuse a whole bunch of people. That said, during the period that I was actively involved in the discussion, I did keep the primary references I was using in open tabs, on the off chance that someone else was also educated on the topic and wanted to know what I was drawing from.

Really it all seems to come down to how well people understand the topic. If you've got a solid background and are qualified to talk about the topic then great, establish your credibility and discuss away (But you should still cite major points or topics of contention, as well as per request). If you're not qualified? That doesn't mean you don't get to participate - the "how long could we live" thread proves that people lacking my background were fully capable of getting up-to-speed and providing interesting ideas(1). Read up on the topic. Get to a point where you would feel comfortable explaining, not debating, the major aspects of the topic before you jump in and try to assert your opinion. If you can't seem to get to that point, don't be afraid of asking someone who's there to explain it to you. As I said, much of my contribution to that thread was explaining the background knowledge, and not only did it help the participants but it also helped me develop my ideas. If everyone has a reasonable base of knowledge and can communicate about the basic aspects of the discussion then I think it's far less likely that the thread will degenerate into an opinion-fight. Don't let it turn into a terrible evolution thread.

Also, try to know what is considered common knowledge, generally accepted, or generally rejected/discredited for the topic. There is nothing more credibility-destroying than presenting an old idea as a new one, a widely accepted idea as "just a theory"(2)(3), or a widely rejected idea as a valid one(3).

In regards to opinions: There's nothing inherently wrong with them. Opinions can and have led to groundbreaking theories, but that doesn't mean you can come into a discussion, give nothing but your opinion, and expect people to listen to you. You're entitled to have an opinion. That doesn't obligate us to acknowledge, consider, or discuss it. If you want people to respect your opinions you need to substantiate them. Convince us that your ideas are worth considering - that can be with facts and evidence or with some good solid logic, depending on the topic at hand. There is a big difference between "Well in my opinion, X." and "Based on A, B and C, I believe X."

1. It also proves that other people are terrifyingly incapable of the same, but I'm trying to be positive here.
2. Also, never say "just a theory" when in a scientific discussion.
3. Unless you follow said presentation with legitimate reasons/evidence. For example, certain individuals in the terrible evolution thread presented Lamarckism as a legitimate theory of evolution. Interestingly enough, Lamarckian evolution does kinda exist in the context of epigenetics, but since those individuals were blatantly incapable of or willing to understand even classical genetics, it was rather obvious that that was not the point they were making, and they were therefore quite harshly called out on their claim.
Last edited by hanz0; Sep 4, 2013 at 03:03 AM.

"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&
Great points from everyone. Thanks for keeping this thread constructive.

As for the citing credible sources. Some people just post the first thing from google that pops up. Sometimes they don't even read the whole thing and end up making a fool of themselves. I don't expect mods to read every link in every thread, but if they do stumble upon one that is way off base or just not good debate/discussion material(Yahoo answers, opinion/biased blogs, less than credible news sites, some lame wikis) they could clean them up.

I have changed my opinion on Wikipedia though. Seems most of them are alright to use, but there are few that are iffy at best.


Also I looked over that thread Hanzo, I have limited knowledge on the subject but that goes to what I said earlier. Read and understand the material before you cite it. Save yourself the humiliation, if you don't have a grasp on the topic you should let that thread go or read up and get educated to the best of your ability before posting.
Last edited by Jakeway; Sep 3, 2013 at 09:40 PM.