In today's WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567981561373094.html there is an opinion piece that covers some of an Ecolog discussion a while back that may reinforce or clarify (or challenge?) some of the posts (I forget the subject line, so can't retrieve the thread). Since I have "referenced" the article via the preceding link, I shall only excerpt some of the salient points in quotes.
"Accurate sourcing guarantees that researchers make rigorous inquiries, handle evidence responsibly, and give credit where it's due." I presume there's no disagreement with that statement of principle; however, when the author says, ". . . while the citations, the style manuals, the numbering, the numbing tedium are just unpleasant memories to folks who now labor far from the groves of academe, they are a continuing affliction for scholars in the humanities." I, for one, believe that anytime a claim to fact is made it should be "accurately sourced" regardless of where it appears in print--including emails, posts, etc., no matter how "far from the groves of academe" one labors. While this level of discipline may be unpleasant for scholars in the humanities (whose footnoting system I do dearly despise, so full it is of ibid's, op. cit's, etc., that I want to scream, why don't you just put the page number, the author's last name and the d.o.p in parentheses, the citation/source in the bibliography and keep it simple and easy?), I have come to disregard ALL of what is claimed that is not properly sourced--the reason for this is largely due to the fact that I simply can't spare the time to chase down and verify all the claims made by ever genius and every nut on the Internet who just wants me to trust him or her. This means I have to ignore what is probably a lot of good stuff that comes my way, but hey, isn't it time we insisted upon discipline at all levels of society? However, I will admit that the proliferation of unsourced claims do serve one very important purpose: They have, for me at least, made me more skeptical of what I read--anywhere. It is one way of separating the grain from the chaff, and the only way that works well, despite being a bit of a blunt instrument. I do not apply this where the author IS the source, or where the author adequately explains the logical stream, principles upon which a claim or conclusion is made or reached. Of course, scholarly writings are subject, to some extent, at least, to comments by "peers," while the popular press rarely follows up or owns up to critical evaluation, especially in the case of newspapers, etc., hence one good reason for their imminent demise. This leads us to yet another issue that needs to be faced in an increasingly complex and voluminous information world--there is a tendency to drop a discussion when the going gets tough. Not only science needs to insist that participants in any discussion worthy of one's time, the whole atmosphere of interaction has got to stop wasting time and energy on discussion and work on issues that go nowhere. There are other issues raised in this article that I will leave to others for comment, as this has grown too long already, but I will be interested to hear whether or not this article, in the opinion of Ecolog subscribers, helps to advance the recent discussion on this topic. As usual, I look forward to having my own thoughts challenged and corrected. WT
