Shrug. Most of the "citation needed" posts I've seen are in response to comments like "almost all recipients of welfare spend it on smokes and alcohol." There probably doesn't exist any studies that disproves that vague claim. Yet whoever posts it shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, hence "citation needed."
[citation needed] is shorthand for "Bold claim. I disagree & very much doubt you can back your claim up.". Which I think is ok. Problems arise if it is used for "I disagree & I like to look smart". That is why I would prefer people use the long form, not cryptic shorthand.
"Shrug. Most of the "citation needed" posts I've seen are in response to comments like "almost all recipients of welfare spend it on smokes and alcohol."
[citation needed]
Personally, I don't feel that you need to back your assertion up with facts. If I wish to take issue with it, the onus is on me to go and scrape HN to produce the definitive validation or refutation of your claim. Which was Saurik's point, I think.
Sure, when you leave a comment asserting something, you don't need to provide a full bibliography of references, but if someone asks for it (ie, someone follows up with [citation needed]) then the onus is on you to show that your facts have a basis in reality. I don't see anything wrong with that.
You can't really disprove something which doesn't have any factual basis.
Surely if someone asks for a citation then they need to provide at a minimum some countering anecdotes. Otherwise their "[citation needed]" is even weaker than my anecdote-supported assertion... And if they're going to present countering evidence, why not just do so without the superfluous "[citation needed]"?
> Surely if someone asks for a citation then they need to provide at a minimum some countering anecdotes.
The burden of proof lies with the initial claim AKA Russell's teapot. In a strict academic forum, the person making the claim should provide evidence at the time of making the claim or at least be prepared to defend it with facts.
