This is a big aside, sorry about that, but I've been wondering about this. People on HN often say "citation needed" when they're talking about a thesis or opinion rather than a source that should be quoted.
Are you sure it's a citation that is needed, or just more elaboration/justification? I was under the impression that a citation had more to do with referencing a source (especially facts, but sometimes theories).
For example, If I said "30% of elbonese immigrants are drug carriers", and there appears to be no evidence of this, I'd say a citation is needed.
If I say "elbonese immigration is a bad thing", it would be reasonable to ask for a justification - that's a bold statement and you can't just make it and move on. But I'm not really claiming a fact here, this is clearly an opinion or thesis. I could cite a source, but really what you're asking for is a better justification of a controversial statement.
I'd agree that a statement like "the biggest problem with math is the language" probably warrants more discussion or defense. But I dunno, "citation needed" seems odd to me. Maybe I have this wrong.
Otherwise yes, strictly speaking you would only ask for a citation as evidence of some claim. But even then, people would still use it informally as a stand-in for "I disagree," "prove it," "says who?," and so on.
It was never my intention to start a meme like this. I started [citation needed] because specifically Wikipedia was (and I guess still is) replete with assertions that had no evidence. I got increasingly annoyed at half-baked statements that could not be easily removed, either because they sounded plausible or because someone would object.
So I decided to create the {{fact}} tag, which would highlight the phrase that had the questionable content. That way, the article could keep the material, but it would be easier to a. signal to the reader that the statement's veracity was in doubt until some sort of citation was provided, or b. someone (hopefully the original author!) would provide a citation for the statement.
It was, to put it mildly, wildly successful. It appears to have been my greatest contribution to Wikipedia, and, it appears, to wider society.
Not sure how this makes me feel. I was hoping for something more significant, but I suppose that if I have contributed something worthwhile then this might as well be it!
Are you sure it's a citation that is needed, or just more elaboration/justification? I was under the impression that a citation had more to do with referencing a source (especially facts, but sometimes theories).
For example, If I said "30% of elbonese immigrants are drug carriers", and there appears to be no evidence of this, I'd say a citation is needed.
If I say "elbonese immigration is a bad thing", it would be reasonable to ask for a justification - that's a bold statement and you can't just make it and move on. But I'm not really claiming a fact here, this is clearly an opinion or thesis. I could cite a source, but really what you're asking for is a better justification of a controversial statement.
I'd agree that a statement like "the biggest problem with math is the language" probably warrants more discussion or defense. But I dunno, "citation needed" seems odd to me. Maybe I have this wrong.