Clarification on "Citation Rule"

[bunnspecial]

This is something that I haven't seen as a moderation issue, but something that I've seen in a current thread and something I've perhaps been guilty of myself.

The Rules for Appropriate Debate-paraphrasing-require that a citation for any statement presented as a fact be able to be backed up with a citation. As a matter of course, I try to provide such especially when I'm stating something "against the grain" before begin asked, but have also requested citations on many occasions when I've seen something posted contrary to what I've known to be true.

I don't know if there's a specific timeline involved for when someone needs to provide such a citation, but when I've requested one, reported the poster for not providing one, the mods will generally give it a few days and then take it down. That part isn't particularly important-just that I have noticed consistent enforcement that seems to balance giving a person time to find references if needed but also removing content that can't be backed up.

I have recently seen a statement that the person making it has provided reference to website/blog type posted and backed up with peer-reviewed references to prove the point. Another posted has requested, a few times, citations from a SPECIFIC source.

I realize that there can be a line where this sort of thing can cross over into opinion-i.e. the person requesting the reference doesn't consider the references provided "good enough" to address it. I've picked apart citations before that I didn't think addressed the point made. Still, though, under the forum rules is ANY citation supporting a claim sufficient, or can the person requesting a citation put terms on it?

I realize too that in the course of a discussion, there can be a difference between "This isn't a rule violation, but I'm asking because I want more information/don't trust those sources/etc" and "This is a rule violation because you were asked for a citation from XXX source and didn't provide one." I'm also leaving out the obvious of saying that something comes from a specific source and then not being able to point to it, which to me would be clear cut.

 

[mollyc]

Hmmm, I think I might know the thread to which this refers.

Counter arguments have not been provided from the same "required" source yet, although I don't know the time difference and also realize that people do have actual lives outside of this forum and time is required for research.

I appreciate the discussion on this topic.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

I realize that there can be a line where this sort of thing can cross over into opinion-i.e. the person requesting the reference doesn't consider the references provided "good enough" to address it. I've picked apart citations before that I didn't think addressed the point made. Still, though, under the forum rules is ANY citation supporting a claim sufficient, or can the person requesting a citation put terms on it?
[...]

If you are asking the staff to assess the veracity of a citation or take down a post because one doesn't believe the citation is good enough, I don't think they will do that. This thread has some information regarding moderation (and is a good read): https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-trouble-with-signatures.2278015/post-29451674

 

[Weaselboy]

Still, though, under the forum rules is ANY citation supporting a claim sufficient, or can the person requesting a citation put terms on it?

Ill try to answer in general. If you said, "Prove what you just said, and don't go trying to give me links from XYZ.com"... or "I will only accept links from ZED.com as proof".... then the other member provided links from some other site that supported their claim, we would not moderate based on them not meeting your site demands.

We do read the "proof" provided to see if it supports the claim. I don't recall that ever being much of an issue though. It is more common for a demand for proof to be made and it is either ignored or rejected.

On the timing issue, you are correct, we try and give the person time to see the demand and provide the proof. I usually look to see if they have posted in the thread again. So if the demand was made Monday morning and the person posts two more times in the thread Monday afternoon, I assume they saw the demand and ignored it.

 

[bunnspecial]

Ill try to answer in general. If you said, "Prove what you just said, and don't go trying to give me links from XYZ.com"... or "I will only accept links from ZED.com as proof".... then the other member provided links from some other site that supported their claim, we would not moderate based on them not meeting your site demands.

We do read the "proof" provided to see if it supports the claim. I don't recall that ever being much of an issue though. It is more common for a demand for proof to be made and it is either ignored or rejected.

On the timing issue, you are correct, we try and give the person time to see the demand and provide the proof. I usually look to see if they have posted in the thread again. So if the demand was made Monday morning and the person posts two more times in the thread Monday afternoon, I assume they saw the demand and ignored it.

Thanks for the clarification on this.

I suspected that under the rules, any "published"(using that term loosely) referenced to support the claim suffices regardless of what the user making the request says.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting otherwise, or asking MR in any way to vet references. In any kind of discussion where proof is provided, I think it's worthwhile to vet each reference, but I'm suggesting that as something each POSTER and not MR as a site should do.

Just to clarify on this too, let me give a few examples purely hypothetical(and a bit absurd just to help make the point)

Statement-"Apple was known to have prototypes of the G6 processor running, and Intel bribed them into switching instead"

"Citation please?"

"This article in 'Journal of Apple Historical Research' says so at link'"

"That's a junk publication and not a valid source. You need to provide something better"

The above I'm guessing would not be actionable despite the demand for a "better" source

To twist it around a bit

Statement-"'Journal of Apple Historical Research' said Intel bribed Apple to not continue developing the G6 processor"

"Please show where this was stated"

No link/reference provided, and I'm guessing would be grounds for being deleted.

Is that a fair summary?

 

[bunnspecial]

On the timing issue, you are correct, we try and give the person time to see the demand and provide the proof. I usually look to see if they have posted in the thread again. So if the demand was made Monday morning and the person posts two more times in the thread Monday afternoon, I assume they saw the demand and ignored it.

To tag a bit more-

I appreciate you explaining the diligence that goes into moderating these requests, and it sounds like it takes perhaps a bit more attention from a forum moderator than some other straightforward rule violations.

With that said, let's say hypothetically a request for citation is made and it's answered with something like "I'm happy to provide it but I have to do x,y, and z to get it so it may take me a couple of days." Can I presume that even if the person is still active in the thread/posting, their request for some time to find the reference would be taken into consideration at least to a point?

 

[Weaselboy]

Is that a fair summary?

Yes... exactly.

With that said, let's say hypothetically a request for citation is made and it's answered with something like "I'm happy to provide it but I have to do x,y, and z to get it so it may take me a couple of days." Can I presume that even if the person is still active in the thread/posting, their request for some time to find the reference would be taken into consideration at least to a point?

Certainly... if someone said it would take them a couple days to reply, we would wait for them to respond.

I can't recall ever seeing that though.

 

[bunnspecial]

I can't recall ever seeing that though.

Maybe about a year back(timelines run together-may have been shorter or longer) I asked for a citation in the car thread for someone who posted some claims that were in fact 100% contradictory to everything I knew of the situation. I asked for citations with an explanation of what I heard. The response was "It will take me a few days, but I want citations for what you say"(paraphrasing). I responded immediately. IIRC the timeline was I asked again after about 3 days with no response, then reported the post, and it was deleted a few days later.

Again, not complaining-I think the approach you're taking is very fair given that-just for example-if someone references an article they remember reading 5 years ago, it might not be an easy thing to find(although I'm sometimes amazed if I can remember enough details, but that's neither here nor there). Depending how in depth, it might also take a few days just to compile/summarize information.

Everything you've described to me sounds like a very reasonable way to balance quality/correctness of information posted here without being too "trigger happy" so to speak about taking down posts just because the person doesn't have an annotated bibliography for their post at the ready.

Just one additional thing too, since it's something I try to do-if I post something and make it very clear that I'm offering my opinion or speculating based on facts presented in the thread, am I correct to assume that a citation request would not necessarily be appropriate? I know this gets into a lot of what-ifs, as an opinion still needs to be drawn from available information, and I'd think asking for the information that caused the person to form the opinion would be reasonable.

 

[Weaselboy]

Just one additional thing too, since it's something I try to do-if I post something and make it very clear that I'm offering my opinion or speculating based on facts presented in the thread, am I correct to assume that a citation request would not necessarily be appropriate?

Correct... you do not need to site a source if you are clear it is just your opinion.

 

[annk]

A user who is clear that s/he is expressing an opinion is not required to provide sources, even when asked to do so. A request for citations isn't inappropriate - the other user might simply be interested in reading more, and it's fine to provide sources if you feel like it. But a user is under no obligation to provide sources as long as it was made clear that the post content was a personal opinion.

 

[SuperMatt]

Don’t forget the tactic of making a claim, then spending 3 pages arguing and refusing to provide a source. Then when reminded of rules requiring them to provide a source for their claim, their response goes something like: “It was an opinion. ”

Or the posting of a link to something that says the opposite of what they are asserting. They just posted the first link they saw without bothering to read it.

In both cases, the poster who engages in these behaviors needn’t be moderated. They have clearly indicated the reliability of their claims, which is noted by others for the future.

 

[mollyc]

Thanks for the clarification on this.

I suspected that under the rules, any "published"(using that term loosely) referenced to support the claim suffices regardless of what the user making the request says.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting otherwise, or asking MR in any way to vet references. In any kind of discussion where proof is provided, I think it's worthwhile to vet each reference, but I'm suggesting that as something each POSTER and not MR as a site should do.

Just to clarify on this too, let me give a few examples purely hypothetical(and a bit absurd just to help make the point)

Statement-"Apple was known to have prototypes of the G6 processor running, and Intel bribed them into switching instead"

"Citation please?"

"This article in 'Journal of Apple Historical Research' says so at link'"

"That's a junk publication and not a valid source. You need to provide something better"

The above I'm guessing would not be actionable despite the demand for a "better" source

To twist it around a bit

Statement-"'Journal of Apple Historical Research' said Intel bribed Apple to not continue developing the G6 processor"

"Please show where this was stated"

No link/reference provided, and I'm guessing would be grounds for being deleted.

Is that a fair summary?

Following on to this scenario, suppose Joe claimed 'Journal of Apple Historical Research' was junk and only wanted a source from 'History of Apple.' Can the person supplying the information from 'JoAHR' "require" Joe to back his source from 'History of Apple"? At what point does it just become too mundane.

I don't even necessarily mean from a moderating standpoint, but just as a courtesy. I would think if Joe has a position that he believes can only be backed up from 'History of Apple' that he should be able to supply a counter-argument in his favor?

 

[Apple_Robert]

Matt,

The staff has made their position crystal clear numerous times. Why do you persist in continuing to argue over positions that have already been addressed? How many times do you need to be told no before you get the idea that the staff doesn't agree with you? I get that you and a few others are really unhappy with the actions of the staff in a few areas. That has been made abundantly clear. Continuing to state the same thing over and over with tedious nuance is not going to change the state of the rules and the administration thereof. If you and others are so unhappy with the staff in the two areas and refuse to accept what is, maybe you should consider going elsewhere, instead of continuing to constantly argue with the staff.

 

[I7guy]

Following on to this scenario, suppose Joe claimed 'Journal of Apple Historical Research' was junk and only wanted a source from 'History of Apple.' Can the person supplying the information from 'JoAHR' "require" Joe to back his source from 'History of Apple"? At what point does it just become too mundane.

I don't even necessarily mean from a moderating standpoint, but just as a courtesy. I would think if Joe has a position that he believes can only be backed up from 'History of Apple' that he should be able to supply a counter-argument in his favor?

If I cited a source that wasn't well regarded by the person I was having the conversation with... I would think that's on them. Because then, anybody can make any claim about the citation. They can debunk my assertion by posting a suitable counter-reply.

 

[SuperMatt]

Matt,

The staff has made their position crystal clear numerous times. Why do you persist in continuing to argue over positions that have already been addressed? How many times do you need to be told no before you get the idea that the staff doesn't agree with you? I get that you and a few others are really unhappy with the actions of the staff in a few areas. That has been made abundantly clear. Continuing to state the same thing over and over with tedious nuance is not going to change the state of the rules and the administration thereof. If you and others are so unhappy with the staff in the two areas and refuse to accept what is, maybe you should consider going elsewhere, instead of continuing to constantly argue with the staff.

I’m afraid I don’t understand. I don’t see a criticism of the mods in my above post.

I was noting certain patterns of behavior on the forum, and how such patterns give others an indication that such posters are unreliable. Therefore, one need not bother the mods over posters who suddenly pivot to “it’s an opinion” when their claims are questioned, or provide dubious sources. They’ve shown everybody their true colors, and everybody is aware for future reference.

In other words, I support the moderators’ reluctance to delve into every fact vs. opinion situation on the forums.

I am having a hard time figuring out how you thought agreeing with the moderators was attacking them…

As for telling others to leave, I consider that a personal attack on somebody. I might disagree with your statements about me, but I have no problem with you being here. I wish you’d afford me the same respect.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I’m afraid I don’t understand. I don’t see a criticism of the mods in my above post.

I was noting certain patterns of behavior on the forum, and how such patterns give others an indication that such posters are unreliable. Therefore, one need not bother the mods over posters who suddenly pivot to “it’s an opinion” when their claims are questioned, or provide dubious sources. They’ve shown everybody their true colors, and everybody is aware for future reference.

In other words, I support the moderators’ reluctance to delve into every fact vs. opinion situation on the forums.

I am having a hard time figuring out how you thought agreeing with the moderators was attacking them…

As for telling others to leave, I consider that a personal attack on somebody. I might disagree with your statements about me, but I have no problem with you being here. I wish you’d afford me the same respect.

I never said you have attacked the mods in my post.

I haven't attacked you in any way. If I had said, Matt, get out of here and never come back, that would be grounds for mod action and rightfully so. All I did was share an observation and opinion, much like others in the thread have done. If you think I have attacked you in any way, feel free to report me to the mods.

 

[SuperMatt]

I never said you have attacked the mods in my post.

I haven't attacked you in any way. If I had said, Matt, get out of here and never come back, that would be grounds for mod action and rightfully so. All I did was share an observation and opinion, much like others in the thread have done. If you think I have attacked you in any way, feel free to report me to the mods.

I still do not understand your post. I was agreeing with the moderators, not “continuing to argue over positions that have already been addressed.” Perhaps you misread my post or it was unclear. Therefore I attempted to clear it up. I hope you can see that I don’t always disagree with the moderators; in this case I agree.

If you and others are so unhappy with the staff in the two areas and refuse to accept what is, maybe you should consider going elsewhere, instead of continuing to constantly argue with the staff.

Am I reading this wrong? You are suggesting that I go elsewhere. Perhaps you feel confident that you’ve skirted the forum rules through the way you phrased it (as evidenced by your invitation to report you), but you’ve made it quite clear you don’t want me here.

Since you’ve made a recommendation to me, would it be fair for me to make a recommendation to you? There is an ignore feature. Consider it a perk of membership here that you can ignore posters that you don’t want to read posts from. I find it preferable to suggesting to others that they leave the forums.

I plan on sticking around for a bit, and I don’t want you to suffer anymore discomfort. This forum *is* big enough for the both of us.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I still do not understand your post. I was agreeing with the moderators, not “continuing to argue over positions that have already been addressed.” Perhaps you misread my post or it was unclear. Therefore I attempted to clear it up. I hope you can see that I don’t always disagree with the moderators; in this case I agree.


Am I reading this wrong? You are suggesting that I go elsewhere. Perhaps you feel confident that you’ve skirted the forum rules through the way you phrased it (as evidenced by your invitation to report you), but you’ve made it quite clear you don’t want me here.

Since you’ve made a recommendation to me, would it be fair for me to make a recommendation to you? There is an ignore feature. Consider it a perk of membership here that you can ignore posters that you don’t want to read posts from. I find it preferable to suggesting to others that they leave the forums.

I plan on sticking around for a bit, and I don’t want you to suffer anymore discomfort. This forum *is* big enough for the both of us.

Yes, the forum is big enough for both of us. I have nothing against you. I just posted an observation which you have chosen to take offense to. I did not insult you nor did I tell you to leave. I had no reason to insult you just because I may disagree with you.

Feel free to post when you feel inclined and I will do the same. I have nothing more to say on the matter at hand.

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes, the forum is big enough for both of us. I have nothing against you. I just posted an observation which you have chosen to take offense to. I did not insult you nor did I tell you to leave. I had no reason to insult you just because I may disagree with you.

Feel free to post when you feel inclined and I will do the same. I have nothing more to say on the matter at hand.

This is fine. However, I just want to make sure everybody understands that your characterization of my post contained errors. I wanted to clear them up.

You claimed that I was ”continuing to argue” and asking why I don’t “get the idea that the staff doesn't agree with you” and then “Continuing to state the same thing over and over with tedious nuance.” You added “If you and others are so unhappy with the staff in the two areas and refuse to accept what is, maybe you should consider going elsewhere, instead of continuing to constantly argue with the staff.”

In actuality, this was my first post in this thread. I was simply pointing out some behaviors I’ve observed on the forums and that I think those behaviors are red flags for others to spot unreliable posters. Therefore, I was agreeing with the mods in the way they are currently moderating the “source” issue. I am not unhappy with the staff regarding this issue in the slightest. It seems like what they’re doing is working just fine when it comes to enforcing the “sources” requirement.

I don’t believe you intentionally made false claims about my post. I think perhaps you saw I had disagreements with other moderation policies in other threads and assumed this was negative too. So why don’t we just chalk this up to a misunderstanding?

I think you’re basically a great guy, and that you simply misunderstood my post.

 

[annk]

I think I can cut to the chase here. If anyone feels that a user is purposely sneaking in opinions stated as fact and then doing a 180 and saying "it's my opinion," feel free to send a report so we can take a look. The rule is intended to help users make clear differentiations between facts and their opinions, not to create a loophole or a way to circumvent the spirit of the rule. Discussions of controversial topics (and other topics, for that matter) are usually more civil when the difference between fact and opinion is clear. That's why the rule is in place - it's meant to be helpful.

 

[bunnspecial]

Following on to this scenario, suppose Joe claimed 'Journal of Apple Historical Research' was junk and only wanted a source from 'History of Apple.' Can the person supplying the information from 'JoAHR' "require" Joe to back his source from 'History of Apple"? At what point does it just become too mundane.

I don't even necessarily mean from a moderating standpoint, but just as a courtesy. I would think if Joe has a position that he believes can only be backed up from 'History of Apple' that he should be able to supply a counter-argument in his favor?

I agree on all of this, and at some point it becomes a matter of "reasonable debate" and courtesy, but not a rule violation or anything actionable.

As an example, lets say in that situation I came back and said "I find JoAHR to be perfectly reputable and in fact have reason to question anything posted in HoA. I base my opinion of this on on these rather outrageous articles that they have published over the years(link, link, link). If you would like an alternative source, however, here is a reference to the same from "Accounts of Apple History"(link) to back up what I stated."

BTW, and I know you know this @mollyc , this question and the discussion around it, came about as a result of one particular citation request in a thread where the quite a few references were provided to back up a statement. One poster, however, did not consider the conclusion drawn valid(in fact some more harsh words were used) unless it could be backed up by one particular source. BTW, I'll also point out that what @mollyc was asserting could probably be classed as an "emerging alternate theory" and sometimes the bigger/more prominent publications are slower to take up such articles until they've been hashed out some in other journals particularly when such things are contrary to what "everyone knows"(which I think fundamentally is what her sources/points are).

Also, @annk thank you also for the comment on citation requests not being inappropriate even if not required by the rules. I know I've read opinions before that hit me as "I've never through of it that way." Hopefully someone's opinion is at least based on some fact that they know, and knowing the basis of why they've formed their opinion can be really helpful. In that case, this is just me, but I'd probably phrase it as "Wow, that's an interesting take on that and I'd never thought of it that way. You mention xx and yy as the basis for your opinion-can you point me to those sources just so I can read some more background on it?" I'd hope that would make it clear what my intent in asking was.

 

[bunnspecial]

Another small clarification and very nit-picky/fringe case I realize, but something I'd just thought of:

I strongly suspect I've made it to a few users' ignore lists, but of course don't know for sure and don't really care(I know I can be hot-headed and my moderation record will show that, but at the same time I try my best to be informative and well-researched when I make a post. I don't mind discussing and defending my statements, but I don't take kindly to wholesale refuation without bothering to read what I wrote, or otherwise to attacking me without understanding what I post, but that's another subject).

Putting all of that aside, though, let's say that I see a rather...spectacular...statement from someone who I suspect is ignoring me but of course don't know for sure. Then, let's say I ask for a citation on that point. Can/would the post still be removed for failing to provide one just because the poster chooses not to see what I-or anyone else-post?

 

[Weaselboy]

Putting all of that aside, though, let's say that I see a rather...spectacular...statement from someone who I suspect is ignoring me but of course don't know for sure. Then, let's say I ask for a citation on that point. Can/would the post still be removed for failing to provide one just because the poster chooses not to see what I-or anyone else-post?

We (mods) would not know the person is ignoring you, so the post would get removed. Then it would be up to the other person to send in a contact explaining they never saw the demand for proof since they are ignoring you.

Honestly, this has never come up that I can recall, so mods and admins would have to discuss and decide what the policy would be in a case like that.

 

[bunnspecial]

We (mods) would not know the person is ignoring you, so the post would get removed. Then it would be up to the other person to send in a contact explaining they never saw the demand for proof since they are ignoring you.

Honestly, this has never come up that I can recall, so mods and admins would have to discuss and decide what the policy would be in a case like that.

I think I've received my answer to that one, unfortunately...

 

[SuperMatt]

How about people providing a quote and claiming it is a full statement from a website, but refuse to provide a link to the website to verify, and it turns out their quote omitted details from the original website?

Or as mentioned earlier, @Weaselboy said if a source is given, the mods will see if it actually checks out. Some are posting links, then claiming something in their post that is actually the opposite of what is in the source, pretending the source supports their claim.

We do read the "proof" provided to see if it supports the claim. I don't recall that ever being much of an issue though. It is more common for a demand for proof to be made and it is either ignored or rejected.

Edit: added quote for clarity