So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more.
If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead.
The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.
> In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners?
Well, in a 1-on-1 conversation, the value of n is 1, so, consistent with what I said, that would be dumb. In fact in a real-time face to face conversation, the time taken to cite the source is more like X(n+1), because while you're looking up the source, the listeners are likely to be just watching you look up the source, so you're using their time as well. Internet comment thread != real life conversation.
> If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me
My first reaction to an unsupported claim is "You could have pulled that out of your ass", because you could have. And no, I don't have that much respect for random strangers on the internet, because I don't know you, I don't have any reason to believe you have any relevant expertise, I don't know your motives, I can't observe your body language, tone and facial expressions, which would normally help me tell if a person knows what they're talking about. I have nothing to go on, other than what you write, and if what you write has no support, I can't assume there is support for what you write.
> The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact
If people already know something, there's no point in posting it. The only people for whom reading your post is worthwhile are people who don't already know it. They are your audience, and they are the people you are neglecting.
> On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.
You just stick in a link to the source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink), it doesn't really get in anyone's way. If they're curious about the source, they click the link.
"If people already know something, there's no point in posting it."
I think you expect something else from HN or this discussion than I do. I think it can be helpful to remind other people of facts in a discussion, lest they get carried away. Not every human exchange has to consist of novelties.
If I do maths, I might remind myself that 2+2=4. I have known it before, but chose to recall that knowledge at opportune moments. In discussions, other people can help with the recalling, it does not imply that the other parties were ignorant before. It is just about adding another perspective.
"I have nothing to go on, other than what you write"
In such situation I tend to resort to common sense. Does it seem plausible ("have merit") what the other person is saying? If yes, I might remember it as an interesting thought (not as established fact), or if it seems useful if true, might take further steps (Google) to verify it.
It's not that hard, and you don't have to insult the discussion partner.
Here is another idea: "That sounds interesting, do you by chance remember the source for that?" See the difference? But hey, it is the internet, there is no human on the other end.
Your argument against rudely asking for citations is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I don't find "[citation needed]" to be particularly rude, but of course tone is difficult to convey in text, especially with a neologism developed in written rather than spoken conversation. So, if you feel that the particular phrasing is rude, your opinion is as valid as mine. I don't know how it was intended when it was written, and neither do you really, so there's nothing more to be said about that.
However, what I have been arguing against are your arguments against providing citations, and your arguments against asking for citations, with both of which I take issue. Asking for citations rudely is wrong, but asking for citations in general is reasonable, and providing citations generally is a good idea.
If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead.
The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.