I worked on COVID epidemiology last year for a couple governments, so I am more familiar with the literature than most people. I don’t expect people to be as familiar as I am.
However, the bane of my existence the last year have been people with strong opinions on “the science” on both sides that use “citation please” as a passive aggressive dismissal from a position of ignorance, and will promptly ignore any citations offered. The Internet is rife with it, and I generally avoid these kinds of discussions.
That may not have been the OP’s intent but I was admittedly playing the overwhelming odds. People that genuinely want to know these things can easily find and access most of the primary sources (some government research is non-public). That’s the best source for all information on COVID, the media has done a terrible job representing it. I didn’t have the above citation ready, I googled it and it came up right near the top.
i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result.
Nature is a reputable publication.
I think this boils down to internet folks assuming their conversational partner has the same level of knowledge they do, don't believe the other party, and then ask for proof, rather than educate themselves. The citation was trivial to produce.
"Citation needed," and it's cousins should be reserved for things that aren't easy to find. This is just embarrassing.
As the parent comment mentioned, there are "both sides" out there, making it difficult and unreliable to expect people to educate themselves.
If someone is asking for citations in bad faith, they probably have "educated themselves" already, just with the wrong education. If someone believes a conspiracy, and they "educate themselves" as you propose, they will probably come to believe even more strongly in the conspiracies.
Half the time people ask for citations they probably believe the claim and just want more confirmation. If I ask for citation it's often because I want the authors personal opinion on what sources are good. I don't want to Google, I want to discuss things with people, that's why I'm in a comment section. And, of course, being a comment section sometimes people just stop talking, whether intentionally or not.
I don't like to see people who ask for sources be treated as though they're the bad guys. I'd rather see more focus on sources than less. If you don't want to be asked for sources say "I think...", but don't be upset if you say "studies have shown..." and somebody asks what studies you're referring to.
Sure, people should be able to identity what is a valid source and what isn't. It's fine to ask about what classifies as good or bad sources (format, publications, etc), how to search, or whatever.
But this isn't what happened. It wasn't "help me to find good articles on the topics like these" it was "citation needed." In fact, I don't think I have EVER seen anyone ask how to find reputable publications on a certain topic.
I also like sources, and when I'm saying things that have provable claims, I like to back them up. Still, what I DON'T go into the comments for is a long list of people going "citation needed!" I come for interesting debate and perspectives. But that's not what i'm getting—i'm getting people disagreeing with each other by putting the onus on the other party.
> i literally selected "SARS-CoV-1 still have a strong immune response almost 20" from OP's questioning comment, right clicked, selected "Search Google for..." and the same article was the first result.
I don't know why you think that's obvious. In fact, I wouldn't have expected that query to yield anything relevant, so I wouldn't have even thought to try it. That's what "knows what to search for" means, it doesn't strictly mean "coming up with obscure jargon keywords".
I have to agree with the previous poster, quite often citation needed is being used as a passive aggressive form of "countering" an argument (I have to admit to having used it myself). And if, like in this case, the study (which was what the poster claimed existed) comes up as one of the first results in a google search, I find "citation needed" either to be disingenuous or lazy. Just as a test I searched for "SARS-COV-1 immunity" and got quite a few relevant references as first results as well (even though not the exact study mentioned above).
This is HN, so I think we can expect people know how to search google.
Oh I definitely agree that "citation please" is rampant as a way to tire out your "opponent", I just think that it's usually in good faith on HN, or at least in this instance.
My demonstration was to prove that you don't even need to know what to search for. I literally took the words he typed into a comment box and put them into a search engine instead. And that was WITHOUT trying to massage it to get better results.
Thanks. I have a lot of sympathy, but a productive discussions requires an assumption of good faith. It's of course true that there are forums where every honest-looking question is really nefarious, but the solution then is to not participate in those forums. Mocking others isn't appropriate in this forum, regardless of what the other person's motives appear to be.
However, the bane of my existence the last year have been people with strong opinions on “the science” on both sides that use “citation please” as a passive aggressive dismissal from a position of ignorance, and will promptly ignore any citations offered. The Internet is rife with it, and I generally avoid these kinds of discussions.
That may not have been the OP’s intent but I was admittedly playing the overwhelming odds. People that genuinely want to know these things can easily find and access most of the primary sources (some government research is non-public). That’s the best source for all information on COVID, the media has done a terrible job representing it. I didn’t have the above citation ready, I googled it and it came up right near the top.