Hasbro-Wizards fired everyone in charge of the physical 5.5 Edition books in December. Why? What does it mean? PDM analyzes.Get The Tomb of Gyzaengaxx! http...
It just came to me from Ben Riggs … I’m going to read it exactly as I received it: Multiple independent sources with knowledge of the situation say that the team in charge of production and distribution of physical DND books was laid off in December 2023. So that’s the previous round of cuts. Now I’m not a journalist, but Ben is, so I consider that solid.
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.
This is such a silly aspect of this to be spending this many words on.
citation /sī-tā′shən/
noun
The act of citing.
A quotation of or explicit reference to a source for substantiation, as in a scholarly paper.
A reference to a previous court decision or other authority for a point of law, usually by case title and other information.
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.
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.