I think, as a concept they're nice. It's good to be able to have a way to read through the things a person is basing his writing on and see if there's any disconnect between what the work is saying and what the writing is saying.

Where it gets annoying for me is

SOURCE? SOURCE?? Do YoU hAvE a SoUrCe???

Where something will just be dismissed outright because it[1] doesn't[2] have[3][4][5] a million citations[6][7][8] suffused throughout a work[9]. It usually seems like a way to just get the writer lost in the weeds because if they do have sources then the person questioning them will just say "oh this source is biased. This one didn't use the right methodology."

I try to avoid getting into debates online, and if I do I just bug out pretty quick because I don't have the time to discuss anything like that.

I say as I make a post on a reddit-clone.

I think, as a concept they're nice. It's good to be able to have a way to read through the things a person is basing his writing on and see if there's any disconnect between what the work is saying and what the writing is saying.

Where it gets annoying for me is

SOURCE? SOURCE?? Do YoU hAvE a SoUrCe???

Where something will just be dismissed outright because it[1] doesn't[2] have[3][4][5] a million citations[6][7][8] suffused throughout a work[9]. It usually seems like a way to just get the writer lost in the weeds because if they do have sources then the person questioning them will just say "oh this source is biased. This one didn't use the right methodology."

I try to avoid getting into debates online, and if I do I just bug out pretty quick because I don't have the time to discuss anything like that. I say as I make a post on a reddit-clone.