160
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
160 points (91.7% liked)
Dungeons and Dragons
10487 readers
34 users here now
A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!
/c/DnD Network Communities
- Dungeons and Dragons - Art
- DM Academy
- Dungeons and Dragons - Homebrew
- Dungeons and Dragons - Memes and Comics
- Dungeons and Dragons - AI
- Dungeons and Dragons - Looking for Group
Other DnD and related Communities to follow*
- Tabletop Miniatures
- RPG @lemmy.ml
- TTRPGs @lemmy.blahaj.zone
- Battlemaps
- Map Making
- Fantasy e.g. books stories, etc.
- Worldbuilding @ lemmy.world
- Worldbuilding @ lemmy.ml
- OSR
- OSR @lemm.ee
- Clacksmith
- RPG greentext
- Tyranny of Dragons
- DnD @lemmy.ca
- DnD Memes@kbin.social
DnD/RPG Podcasts
*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans
Rules (Subject to Change)
- Be a Decent Human Being
- Credit OC content (self or otherwise)
- Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article
Format: [Source Name] Article Title
- Posts must have something to do with Dungeons and Dragons
- No Piracy, this includes links to torrent sites, hosted content, streaming content, etc. Please see this post for details
- Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
- No NSFW content
- Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
From the video (basically the first thing said):
That's not a citation. That's a quote of hearsay.
Not everything that some specific person said is automatically true. However, a specific quoted statement made by an identified qualified source is, in fact, a citation. Now we know who (allegedly) said it, and we can get on into a conversation about whether they actually said that, or whether they're qualified, or what other qualified people say about it or bring other sources to bear etc.
What would you say is a citation, if not who said it, why they're qualified, and what they said?
To read their comment generously as I did initially, calling it a "quote of hearsay" is calling the validity of the citation so far removed from being trustworthy it doesn't deserve the word. Granted, it would be doing this without explicitly stating so or supporting it with any evidence or arguments.
To be honest, I'm not convinced by this source. We don't know who made the claim, we know a guy that wrote a DnD book a year and a half ago told a youtuber they exist and said it. That's a step or two removed from where I would trust it.
See that makes perfect sense. If "Citation needed" said instead "Who is Ben Riggs and why would I trust him" then we could have had a lot more time efficient productive conversation about it.
Well stated .
I guess it depends if they were taking a quote from published work?
This is such a silly aspect of this to be spending this many words on.
citation /sī-tā′shən/
noun
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
This is number 2. Usually an explicit reference is enough, but in this case it's got the exact quote, the exact source who said it (you can contact him on Twitter if you want to verify it or find out more), why the source considered it reliable information, and why they should arguably be considered an authoritative source. Again: Doesn't mean what's in the video is true. But it forms a basis for starting to talk about whether it's true.
I think people have gotten accustomed to invoking the word "citation" as a way of disagreeing with something they don't think is proven, so much so that they've lost sight of the actual concept involved and the next steps once you have the source and what they said. It seems like at this point it's just a way to sound smart or skeptical in a comment.
I think, too, people have interpreted "citations" as "smoking gun proof", and not, literally, just the thing that was said, and the name of the person who said it/location where you can find the thing that was said. As if the point of citing sources is to win arguments, not to let information be traced and independently verified.
There's an infamous Twitter exchange among the online Toronto Blue Jays fandom, where the team's official Twitter account announced that a player was injured, and someone replied with "Source?"
The team's account replied in turn with "Literally us, the Blue Jays".
I think quite a lot of people on the internet view the entire point of the operation to be winning arguments, as opposed to getting at the truth. I can understand the drive but it's not a real productive tradition.
this is such a silly comment. is anything a citation to you?
Wow, look at those goalposts go! They sure are moving pretty fast.