[bloomingkales]

I think we seek to credit the source for reasons that are not clear. Do you feel any which way if I suggest to you your carrot soup only tastes good because of the carrots you put in it? With the follow up question being, why don’t you admit you put carrots in it?

We don’t really do this because there’s no concept of ownership of food to that degree. Maybe 200 years ago, where a farmer may chew you out since he toiled the soil to get you that carrot.

So, for us to not be possessive of knowledge, we’d need to evolve. It’s not likely in our lifetime, but perhaps 500-1000 years down the line the social fabric will evolve to handle this, similar to food possession.

Or I could be wrong, and we just have a bunch of naturally thieving crooks all over the place.

[BoxFour]

> I think we seek to credit the source for reasons that are not clear... We don’t really do this because there’s no concept of ownership of food to that degree.

Cooking is not a great comparison, and it betrays your point more than anything. If you cook something particularly impressive or complex, people will almost universally ask about the recipe and where it came from.

Origination is actually a pretty common topic of discussion for many things.

[makapuf]

Some fine restaurants here are very proud to tell you the meat comes from such and such farm, the vegetables from such farm by this people and the wine from this vineyard. That's even on the menu.

[jajko]

Here in Switzerland, even burger joints have this for all major ingredients (meat, potato, veggies, bun made by really local bakers etc.). Heck, even McDonald has it, which is the worst tasting & looking on the market, and not necessarily cheapest.

If population cares about it enough companies adapt, even if 50km down the road in another country they sell lower quality with same name (EU generally is less strict re food quality, but both tower high above what US FDA permits).

[vladms]

> I think we seek to credit the source for reasons that are not clear.

For me a source means I can verify some claims, find another opinion/presentation, are able to view other work based on that source.

It is the difference between having links between web pages or having only independent web pages. I guess we can all agree there is value in having the information "X was based on Y".

The reason people do not credit can also be that they don't add any value. If the original source is more complete, more correct and better presented then they might "loose" their perceived value. Does this happen in all cases? Probably not. But it is my first instinct when I see it (happens a lot to "news" article as well for example, when talking about papers, university announcements, etc, things that could be easily "linked")