Accuracy is the excuse of lazy people, if I want a source I look for it and if I want I share it. What you consider so important is not important at all. No one owns his time to you or anyone else.
While I would like to agree with you, because far too often people dont ask for a source in good faith, would have to be consistent with the etiquette and require that the burden of proof falls on the person that makes a claim.
Nah you’re the one who’s confused. Nobody owes you their attention any more than you “owe” a source. And asking for a source is not the same as demanding or claiming to be owed. You incorrectly created that context in your own head.
Google is not your friend when it keeps regurgitating AI generated articles and images. They aren’t your friend when the only way you can get “reliable” information is by appending ‘reddit’ at the end. They aren’t your friend when you search with clear terms and tags the suggested articles they present are recent $$$$$ boosted ones instead of clearly the popular article that broke the event.
Asking for a source for breaking information that can significantly change a story should never be frowned upon. I asked, they initially admittedly provided tabloids, and then they provided legitimate sources. Lastly I thanked them for providing the source.
In cases like this, it is new information that the person clearly had recent access to so asking for the source should be extremely easy. Asking someone to waste their time verifying someone else’s claims when that claim could be complete horseshit is silly. I can’t exactly come upon a source that does not exist.
Source?
I’ve found it so far on the Daily Mail, but not on any non-tabloid sources yet.
Edited to add: here’s Barron’s
Edited again: and Reuter’s
Thanks!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67738111
Thanks!
Google is your friend, if you really care for a source of course…
Asking for a source should never be looked down on in discussions like this where misinformation can be rampant and accuracy is important
Accuracy is the excuse of lazy people, if I want a source I look for it and if I want I share it. What you consider so important is not important at all. No one owns his time to you or anyone else.
While I would like to agree with you, because far too often people dont ask for a source in good faith, would have to be consistent with the etiquette and require that the burden of proof falls on the person that makes a claim.
Burden of proof is for trials. You guys are all pretty confused.
Ah, my mistake in giving you more credit than you deserve. Burden of proof.
Nah you’re the one who’s confused. Nobody owes you their attention any more than you “owe” a source. And asking for a source is not the same as demanding or claiming to be owed. You incorrectly created that context in your own head.
Not all requests for sources are equal. And you’re being kind of a dick.
Hey I googled it and found a source!
Google is not your friend when it keeps regurgitating AI generated articles and images. They aren’t your friend when the only way you can get “reliable” information is by appending ‘reddit’ at the end. They aren’t your friend when you search with clear terms and tags the suggested articles they present are recent $$$$$ boosted ones instead of clearly the popular article that broke the event.
Truth
Asking for a source for breaking information that can significantly change a story should never be frowned upon. I asked, they initially admittedly provided tabloids, and then they provided legitimate sources. Lastly I thanked them for providing the source.
In cases like this, it is new information that the person clearly had recent access to so asking for the source should be extremely easy. Asking someone to waste their time verifying someone else’s claims when that claim could be complete horseshit is silly. I can’t exactly come upon a source that does not exist.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s great to be right.
It is. You should try it sometime.
Removed by mod