Many answerers NEVER cite a single source; why?

• ...and then they are VOTED the most correct answer- give me a break! Am I the only one that witnesses so many people answer the question and never ever cite a single source or reference? When they do it is often times wikipedia (many of its articles lack a single source or reference) Many people also plagiarize (steal someone's work without proper attribution). Also, people that practice the NO SOURCE answer will never graduate from college. Learn young and get in the habit of QUOTING RELIABLE SOURCES AND REFERENCES (8 You know what I would love to see? Your answer can NOT be posted until you quote your source!

• Answer:

  (I wrote this yesterday but forgot to post it, so sorry if it doesn't take proper account of Rabbit's fine answer.) As the answers so far have suggested, people have different reasons for not citing sources. Some are not able to, some are too lazy to, others truly lack the time. But I'm also sure there are quite capable of doing so but do not simply because they have t different view of the nature of Yahoo!Answers. I think there are other things going on as well, things the participants may not realize (or may not have stopped to think about). General observation: many of those who have answered so far don't appear to have read the question, and a number have fallen prey to common logical fallacies (esp. of the 'infomal' type). I do not mean to say that everyone who says things like "I knew the answer without looking it up" is acting illogically or inappropriately... but these mistakes do explain SOME of what's going on, and this method provided a convenient way to organize my thoughts! 1) Fallacy of "hasty generalization" Some point out that is is not ALWAYS necessary to cite sources to point out a fact or make a point. True. But since the question asks why some NEVER cite sources for their answers, I assume the asker understands that there are times, perhaps many, when a solid answer does not need to be sourced. But that does NOT explain why someone would NEVER give a source 2) Fallacy of "appeal to authority" ? (or "I don't need no stinkin' sources!") Another common answer seems to boil down to "I'm an expert in the field so I don't need to look up the answer... or I know so MUCH that I can't be bothered to track down the source that lays out the specific information or evidence that would support what I'm writing." My thoughts on that: a) First, how do we KNOW you're an expert? should we simply accept your word that so-and-so said, wrote or did such-and-such, without ANY specifics? And does your general expertise in a rather large field PROVE that your answer on ANY question is reliable? (I try hard NOT to emphasize my credentials, even --or especially-- when they have a direct bearing on the question. I would rather attempt to lay out the facts and my reasoning in a way that gives people a chance to FOLLOW my thoughts and, I hope, come to the same conclusion, or at least understand how *I* got there!) Related to this -- some refuse to cite wikipedia, because 'so many articles in it are unreliable or don't list any sources'. Yet you expect us to just accept YOUR word without any sources ?? Frankly, I think the complete dismissal of ALL wikipedia links is silly, especially on the basis of the site being "uneven". Sure, there are very poor wiki articles, and some that have poor sources, or none. But there are many others which are quite well-done and useful, which nicely summarize lists of information, and provide good links to primary documents and good secondary discussions, etc. So, if you know the field and cannot easily find another source to point people to for futher information, why not at least check out the wikipedia article(s) related to your topic and SEE if they are good ones? (One big caveat here. I have seen EXCELLENT wikipedia articles destroyed, even suddenly replaced by a person or group that swept in with their own odd POV, esp. if it's an area where some feelings run high.) b) Even if your information is correct, won't people learn more if they have the opportunity to actually LOOK at the original sources or good secondary treatments or them? 3) The "petitio principi" argument? (=circular argument or "begging the question", assuming the thing to be proved) Then there's the argument "it's common knowledge" or "they could easily find the info by a web search". Maybe so (or rather, frequently so!). But if that's how you feel about the specific question, I wonder why you're bothering to answer it? Also, if it's that easy, and you know how to do it, would it take that much effort to select and list a link that nicely lays out these facts? As a matter of fact, MANY "common knowledge" answers are based on truisms or assumptions. But three are all too many things that "everyone knows" that simply aren't so, or at least are grossly simplified! I do find it odd to read people's explanations of what the Emancipation Proclamation said and did who give no evidence of having read it (or 'them', that is the 'preliminary' and 'final' versions). Here's an example of something SHORT and fairly easy to find links to. So why do so few bother to either link to it, quote it or point to any of its specifics? 4) A specific case of #1 -- implying that because SOME questions can't or shouldn't be sourced, that this applies to ALL Some say, "many questions are a matter of opinion, so how do you source that?" Of course, if the question is a pure question of 'matter of taste', e.g., 'what's your favorite color?' it may not make any sense to expect sources. But if someone asks for an EVALUATION question (e.g., "Who was the best general/president...?") that asks for an opinion based on your understanding of FACTS, and sourcing these might be appropriate. Even when asking something more "personal", like "Who is YOUR favorite president?" most people want, or would appreciate, REASONS. And on occasion these might be helped by adding a source. Part of the complaint, it seems, is the giving of "best answer" to those who don't provide solid evidence (esp. sources). That's a fair criticism of things that go on here. It might be fine to lay out your answer without sources, but if someone responds to that with a reasoned and (well!-)SOURCED answer, that ought to be taken seriously, perhaps given more weight that the un-sourced answer. Or maybe people should at least CHECK OUT the sources a bit before choosing a "best answer". _________________________________ One final thought -- I find it a bit ironic that this question if being asked by someone who provides NO personal info or email links, and has hidden all their questions and answers in this new "private network"! There may be good reasons for that... but in general I think one of the ways people can figure out whether your answer is worth taking seriously (or is even your OWN) is by being able to look at OTHER things you've written.