[freeflight]

I see nothing wrong with an "obsession" with sources.

The www was very much built on sharing http links as a form of citation, no reason not to make use of such an fundamental and established function.

Imho the opposite has become a much worse issue; People casually claiming the most extraordinary things, far outside the realm of opinions, with not even an attempt to source it.

[bee_rider]

A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time. If a source is requested, it should be obvious or explained where the source fits into the over-arching argument, it might require just as much work on the asker’s side, to establish why it is necessary.

There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.

[freeflight]

> A bad-faith request for a source is just an attempt to waste the other person’s time.

Why not add a source to begin with, so others don't have to "waste" their time asking for one/looking one up?

With anything that's citing numbers, or statements by some official person or institution, that's imho a no-brainer.

Particularly as a Google search can yield wildly different results based on location, search history, and wording of the search request. So assuming everybody else can "Just Google it", is often not very useful.

> There’s also the risk that the request for a source just devolves into an argument about the quality of the source, which basically torpedos the discussion.

You call it a risk, I call it an opportunity to fact-check if the original claim is actually true, or just one of the many headlines that take liberties for sensationalism.

It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from.

That's not a given when people from often vastly different educational, socio-economic, cultural and language backgrounds interact with each other, as it constantly happens online.

[wlesieutre]

> It's also an opportunity to establish a "base truth" that people can agree on as a premise, to start a discussion from.

Source?

;)

[johnnyanmac]

It makes sense on Wikipedia. But meanwhile, Reddit seems powered by anecdotes but will ask for a source when you bring opposition. Motte and Bailey.

[Consultant32452]

If you actually care to be informed you will at least try to find a source yourself first, even to use it to disprove me.

[freeflight]

If you actually care to inform, then you can add a source to give the information some third party background and more details.

Expecting others to put in the work to authenticate your claims, by sending them on wild goose chases on Google that might or might nor yield the same results you got, is a recipe for getting overwhelming amounts of disinformation.

As it's way easier to casually claim an unsourced falsehood, than it is to research a topic and debunk that falsehood with credible sources.

[Consultant32452]

It's this way of thinking that has made requesting a source the new "Nuh-uh."

A better response is, "I see it different, here's a source I'm providing or story of personal experience that suggests why. Do you have other context or information that could help me understand your position?"