Claims of authority

[theluggage]

Turns outs, that sketchy source was 100% right, making that thread a great example of why posting stuff, even sketchy stuff, is fine. Just as long as there is context to what is being posted.

Agreed that it says "MacRumors" right in the title, so sketchy stuff is to be expected. However, in general, the fact that a sketchy source turns out to be right right doesn't really prove anything about the source - a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital).

E.g. based on my sources at Apple, I can reveal that the 2022 iMac will feature a 27" or larger screen and be powered by a M1 Pro or M1 Max processor, feature an SD reader and possibly a HDMI sockets, and cost at least $1799. Now there's a pretty strong chance that that will prove accurate (and I've added enough qualifiers to cover the most likely mistakes). It is "false" in the sense that my only "source at Apple" is the same MacBook Pro launch video that everybody else saw, yet I'm spinning it as if it was some sort of confirmation of what most people are guessing. And, yes, I can think of a few YouTube channels that specialise in that sort of fluff.

...then, in some cases, the controversy has not been whether the sketchy source is true, but whether it was right to reproduce or promote information that may have been obtained illegally. NB: I can't recall any cases where MR have directly reproduced "stolen" documents, but journalistic logic seems to be that once someone else has done so, it's officially On The News Agenda and it's OK to report on what they released. Hmm.

I'm not talking about changing careers. I'm talking about obvious falsehoods.

Funnily enough, this subject came up during my weekly poker game with Socrates, Jesus, Abraham Lincoln and Batman, and they all agreed that the question was "how do you know that a falsehood is obvious?" and that your example made the unlikely assumption that someone posted a blatantly self-contradictory resume. Socrates said that the best response is always a reasoned counter-argument supported by references - which also forces you to check your own facts just in case you have it wrong. Batman reckoned that it was OK to use ad hom attacks if you have cast-iron evidence that their credentials were false (but never kill them unless they accidentally fall off a roof before you can save them), but Jesus didn't think that was ever acceptable, even if they ad hom'd unto you (then he folded on three-of-a-kind). Abe pointed out that it also depends what they were saying - if it's a harmless matter of opinion then don't sweat it, but if they were suggesting something potentially harmful - like encouraging people not to wear a kevlar vest at the theatre - he was sure that the MacRumor's mods would look into it if you reported the post.

So there you have it, from the people who really should know.

 

[chown33]

Becuase others can be led to believe in someone’s authority and lend more credence to their words than perhaps should be given.

Especially if said person makes claims that are demonstrably doubful at best, or provably untrue at worst.

If claims are made, and they are demonstrable or provable, then one can simply reply with the demonstration or proof.

It shouldn't matter what authority, experience, or qualifications someone says they have. If the stated claims are demonstrable or provable, then focus there, and let the evidence itself become evident.

Take it from someone who drives a Lambo and has a girlfriend who's both a Vogue model and a PhD physicist, unverifiable claims on the internet are as common as dust. Anyone can search my post history to see I'm telling the truth about this.

 

[I7guy]

This question was directed at the moderators/administrators, but I can see situations where it was relevant

"I say that x is true because I hold y certification"...and Y certification doesn't exist

Assuming that's directly related to the discussion, I wouldn't necessarily say "That doesn't exist" but, in a more general sense, would it not be appropriate to say "Can you post a link to what y certification entails?"

Asking for that information would in effect be asking for a citation in my mind...

The bolded to me is an example of debate the post not the poster.

So if someone who’s a lifelong woodcutter by trade happens to post “When I used to work as a policeman I found…” - that such a post shouldn’t be called into question?

The poster here has specifically called out their imaginary occupation as a means to claim authority over a subject.

We allow for citations to be requested for other claims, why not this?

This is especially true where said poster creates a totally imaginary job that obviously is fictional and uses that to lend credence to their opinion.

Remember there are people here who will read such posts and put weight onto a post from someone who claims they’re an expert in the field, even when there’s a very high chance that they’re far far from an expert and just a braggart.

I personally would not debate the poster but would debate the post. Debating the poster imo leads to unintended consequences like insults.

MacRumors staff has indicated they are not the truth police. If one is worried that an unsuspecting reader will take some (blatantly false) post to heart post evidence to the contrary.

 

[icanhazmac]

If claims are made, and they are demonstrable or provable, then one can simply reply with the demonstration or proof.

It shouldn't matter what authority, experience, or qualifications someone says they have. If the stated claims are demonstrable or provable, then focus there, and let the evidence itself become evident.

Take it from someone who drives a Lambo and has a girlfriend who's both a Vogue model and a PhD physicist, unverifiable claims on the internet are as common as dust. Anyone can search my post history to see I'm telling the truth about this.

NO WAY BRO!

Per forum rules I'm gonna need you to post a pic of your girl, in the lambo with Neil deGrasse Tyson holding her Vogue layout and a dated 'hello MR, love chown33' sign!

/s

I would suggest enlisting @AngerDanger to help with the pic.

 

[Euroamerican]

1. Try using your words to have an adult discussion, pleasantly avoiding the claims that annoy you?

2. "Let it go?"... As in, just let it go completely.

3. You can't always get what you want........ Ultimate Knowledge, for example. Take what you can and proceed in life.

 

[maflynn]

1. Try using your words to have an adult discussion, pleasantly avoiding the claims that annoy you?

2. "Let it go?"... As in, just let it go completely.

3. You can't always get what you want........ Ultimate Knowledge, for example. Take what you can and proceed in life.

Taking my moderator hat off and speaking purely as a member - this is great advice. I don't see the value in getting so wrapped up in a discussion that we're needing to verify people's credentials.

It reminds me of this

 

[collin_]

Many subreddits verify credentials and hand out badges, but on a tech forum I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the moderators to do that, so you will just have to determine if someone is lying or not to the best of your ability. Like others have said, it’s the veracity of someone’s claims, as opposed to their credentials, that really matters.

 

[TiggrToo]

Many subreddits verify credentials and hand out badges, but on a tech forum I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the moderators to do that, so you will just have to determine if someone is lying or not to the best of your ability. Like others have said, it’s the veracity of someone’s claims, as opposed to their credentials, that really matters.

When the same poster claims numerous professions (most of which look fictional to the trained eye) one wonders if others give more credence to the fictional narrative rather than the real people.

 

[TiggrToo]

Taking my moderator hat off and speaking purely as a member - this is great advice. I don't see the value in getting so wrapped up in a discussion that we're needing to verify people's credentials.

It reminds me of this
View attachment 1911522

What you have posted applies to 99% of MR. Not seeing how it's applicable to the situation being discussed.

 

[maflynn]

Not seeing how it's applicable to the situation being discussed.

You literally asked to have someone's credentials be verified:

where a user claims they are an authority on a subject
...
if a user here claims to have experience on a subject and that another user feels that there is cause to doubt that, such a claim could fall under the citation rule.

As I said, its an internet discussion forum, I don't see the need to start checking up on people's work experience in order to post content.

 

[Lihp8270]

If a user claims authority via posting their credentials on a forum I instantly question everything they post.

Typical experience and knowledgable people do not need to clarify their information with “I’m an expert” or similar. Their knowledge and experience are usually self evident.

Even in the world of academia you cannot use your own experience as a reference. My OH has a PhD and is a lecturer yet when doing her own research she is still expected to back up her statements using suitable citations not simply “because I’m an expert in the field”

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

If a user claims authority via posting their credentials on a forum I instantly question everything they post.

Typical experience and knowledgable people do not need to clarify their information with “I’m an expert” or similar. Their knowledge and experience are usually self evident.

Even in the world of academia you cannot use your own experience as a reference. My OH has a PhD and is a lecturer yet when doing her own research she is still expected to back up her statements using suitable citations not simply “because I’m an expert in the field”

So, you can't use your own experience, but you obviously believe you can use someone close to you's experience/credentials. (;

 

[Lihp8270]

So, you can't use your own experience, but you obviously believe you can use someone close to you's experience/credentials. (;

Seems like it’s an easy trap to fall in to! ?

It was an example of when experts in a field still have to provide sources. I guess to phrase it without the anecdote.

the sentence could be, academic researchers still have to supply references from peer reviewed sources despite being subject experts themselves.

 

[I7guy]

When the same poster claims numerous professions (most of which look fictional to the trained eye) one wonders if others give more credence to the fictional narrative rather than the real people.

“We’ve been trying to reach you about your cars extended warranty” scam exists because people are gullible. I posit the same people who would fall for that scam would give credence to fictional narratives and blatantly false misinformation or disinformation.

On Macrumors, the best tool we have is the ability to post correct, factual information and stay away from the poster. To paraphrase Tom hanks re gullible people: “stupid is as stupid does.”

 

[bunnspecial]

On Macrumors, the best tool we have is the ability to post correct, factual information and stay away from the poster.

Yes, the spread of correct information is a powerful tool to combat this, however sometimes the seeming assault of artificial credentials can be relentless.

 

[Juicy Box]

I'm not talking about changing careers. I'm talking about obvious falsehoods.

Sure, that could be the case, but you are focusing on the less important part of the post. Check out this part:

I think calling out bad posts with counter arguments and citations supporting those counter arguments would probably be the best way to handle the situation.

Or just ignore em.

My point was that one's credentials, regardless of accuracy, shouldn't really matter on the forum.

What matters is what is posted. If someone uses their credentials as evidence of something, it should be considered an opinion, imo.

Credentials is not proof of fact, and this goes for life outside of MR as well.

Agreed that it says "MacRumors" right in the title, so sketchy stuff is to be expected. However, in general, the fact that a sketchy source turns out to be right right doesn't really prove anything about the source - a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital).

While all true, I was making a comparison between this thread and the thread about sketchy sources, and that credentials alone is not proof of fact.

Just because a sketchy source doesn't have the credentials, doesn't mean they are wrong.

And it goes the other way as well, just because a well known source has a good track record, doesn't automatically make them right.

 

[theluggage]

Just because a sketchy source doesn't have the credentials, doesn't mean they are wrong.

And it goes the other way as well, just because a well known source has a good track record, doesn't automatically make them right.

..."past performance is not a guarantee of future results" but in the absence of hard facts, that and the plausibility of the claims are all you have to go on. Apple are extremely secretive about future products so pretty much any source of "leaks" is sketchy by definition - either someone has been willing to break an NDA or made some pretty big, indirect inferences from available data.

...and in the internet age, yes, there is plenty of incentive to make up false or exaggerated stories - either to drive traffic to a site, generate FUD or for simple attention-seeking.

This is a rumours site - much effort will be spend on arguing "for" rumours that turn out to be false and "against" rumours that turn out to be true. Some - especially things like release dates, names and prices that don't have to be fixed months in advance - might even have been "true" while they were being discussed, but later changed. Lots of perfectly valid and well-reasoned arguments based on rumours will be rendered moot when the truth is revealed. That's part of rational debate - without hard evidence, it should be about the validity of the argument, when the hard evidence arrives, it is settled, with no disrespect to those who argued against. However, hindsight doesn't make bogus arguments valid just because they happened to stumble on the right answer, nor does it discredit people who were rightly skeptical of shady rumours.

 

[annk]

A user's credentials don't matter under the rule. Something posted as fact in a discussion does.

Example:

Birds in Thailand can't fly. If I post that and don't qualify it as my opinion, any user in the thread can request that I provide a source, and I can be moderated if I don't. Same goes for Birds in Thailand can't fly and I know that because I'm an expert on birds in Thailand. I still need to provide sources for the "birds can't fly in Thailand" statement (other than my own self-proclaimed credentials) if asked. Whether or not I'm really an expert in the subject means zero.

I'm sure it can be argued that "Well user X posted that he's a policeman, that piece of information is being stated as fact and therefore I can require user X to back it up with sources." But that's not what the rule is for. And we certainly are not going to require that a user post a college transcript, diploma, image of an employee card or contract. We don't require users to reveal personal information about themselves in threads, regardless of what they might claim about themselves.

So circling back to this thread's original post, written by @TiggrToo:

How can one handle a situation where a user claims they are an authority on a subject being discussed but such claim is questionable by others?

In the context of your question, it doesn't really matter if users feel the poster's claim of being an authority is true or not. You have to live with your feeling that it's questionable.

If the self-proclaimed authority posts something as fact and you'd like more info, you can ask the user for a source on the matter being discussed.

That's how to handle it.

Is this something that we’re not allowed to ask about and let it lie? It would seem that if a user here claims to have experience on a subject and that another user feels that there is cause to doubt that, such a claim could fall under the citation rule.

It doesn't fall under the citation rule.

It's not explicitly forbidden to ask, but I'm hard pressed to think of a case where it wouldn't be off topic to the thread subject or put the user in a position of only being believed if details were given that could help identify that user, which isn't wise for reasons outlined above.

I get it is dodgy ground, but I do also feel it’s important because if someone claims to have training in say Computer Graphics but their posts clearly show otherwise, how does one challenge this without derailing a post into the relm of potential off-topic land?

I don't think it's possible in most cases to challenge a user's credentials without derailing a thread.

It's the internet, some people will misrepresent themselves.

In extreme cases, a pattern of claiming to be have varying professions could possibly be seen as trolling, but that would depend entirely on context.

 

[annk]

Sorry, haven't been online the last few days and missed your question in the post where you quoted me.

Can I tag onto this and ask a bit of a related question?

First of all, I will state that this is an ACTUAL scenario from a thread on MR, hence the level of detail I'm providing although I did not act on it at the time:

1. A poster claims knowledge of some topic because of their credentials after having attended a professional conference

2. The poster gives specific details of that conference, including name of the conference, location, date, and speakers at it, and their position

3. A user investigating that information finds that a. No such conference by that name exists. b. There was no conference in the field in that location on that date or any date around it. c. The speakers stated as being at the conference did not hold the positions or have the qualifications that the post claimed they had

Would asking for details of the conference be appropriate, and if none were forthcoming could this violate the citation rule?

Again, very specific situation, but not one I've simply sat here and fabricated...

This doesn't fit under the citation rule, but a depending on circumstances such behavior could be trolling. We would have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis as to trolling.

But as I posted above, this is the internet, and people won't always tell the truth about themselves. That's not a rules violation.

... let's say someone claims to hold a certification that doesn't actually exist. Would it be appropriate to not so much ask the person to prove that they hold that certification, but just to more in general show that the what they claim is something that DOES exist?

It seems to me that doing so would be to take the thread off topic, unless the subject of the thread is "I have certification X."

This question was directed at the moderators/administrators, but I can see situations where it was relevant

"I say that x is true because I hold y certification"...and Y certification doesn't exist

Assuming that's directly related to the discussion, I wouldn't necessarily say "That doesn't exist" but, in a more general sense, would it not be appropriate to say "Can you post a link to what y certification entails?"

Asking for that information would in effect be asking for a citation in my mind...

Asking "Can you post a link to what y certification entails?" is of course asking for a citation, as you yourself point out, but it's not the type situation where we we require users to supply citations when the state something as fact and another user asks for a source. It would be up to the user whether or not to post a link in this case, and I would think that the exchange would be off topic in most cases.

Hypothetical situation where it would be appropriate to ask the sort of questions you list:

Let's say there's a thread where the subject is a discussion of computer languages and how/where to get certified.

"I have certification Y, it took me ages to finish."
"Oh cool, I have certification X but I'm really interested in looking into certification Y. Where did you go to school?"
"University of Bago."
"Ummm... I can't find a course for Y at the University of Bago. Which department were you in?"

And on and on. It seems to me that in the context of this discussion, it's perfectly natural to ask for more info when you can't find the certification at Bago and the thread subject is how and where to get certified. But this has nothing to do with the citation rule.