Hi everyone,
I've asked the mods if this was ok to post, and I've been given /u/caffarelli's blessing, so away we go.
A few months back, /u/NMW made a fantastic post on what it means to post a good answer in /r/AskHistorians, and our resident librarian mod, /u/caffarelli, followed up with an equally fantastic comment on different kinds of sources and their uses when providing an answer here. I've linked both posts so I don't need to regurgitate what they've already put so eloquently, and if you haven't read either in your time here, I highly encourage you to do so.
Anyhow, I've noticed as of late, a bit of a trend with how sources are sometimes cited/used in both initial responses to a question (not so much of an issue here) and responses to followup questions regarding sources or scholarship pertaining to the original answer or topic.
Now typically when a question is first answered, I don't think any of the mods or other users including myself expect everyone to cite their sources using MLA/CMS, etc. That'd be a bit too demanding for what I think we're all trying to accomplish here and I don't think we want to discourage good answers by requiring their authors to follow rigid source citations in every post that they make.
However, I do think it's a bit important that when we are answering questions, we should be prepared to explain our sources and expand upon them to give readers a more accurate idea where they can corroborate/find this information for themselves if they choose to do so. If they are primary, why they are important. If secondary, what primary or scholarly resources were used by their authors to reach their conclusions, etc.
I've frequently seen in the past few months users ask follow up questions in regards to how a particular source came to the answer or conclusion provided in the initial respondents post, or what primary sources or data-sets a particular historian or book used to reach their conclusion, only to either be ignored, down voted, or told that sources were already provided. This is an entirely fair line of questioning to ask anyone who has taken the time to respond to a question, and ignoring it or merely pointing out that you've already cited sources (especially when it's a secondary or tertiary source), does not necessarily answer the question, nor is it intellectually honest at times.
The underlying point I'm trying to reach is this, It isn't always enough to just name a book or an article you've read when providing an answer. Not every answer needs a source citation with page numbers or a in-depth analysis of the historiography surrounding a topic. However, one should not balk at providing further explanation behind why a particular source was chosen or what specifically that historian or source used to reach their conclusion.
I am aware there are definitely times where I've seen users ask for sources as a strategy to discredit a particular answer or cause mischief (and it's certainly something to be wary of as well), but I think our mod team does a fantastic job of stopping that stuff. It's rare for that kind of thing to happen without a mod or another flaired user assisting you in pushing back against people who are obviously not interested in whatever explanation or sources you can provide them. Intellectual honesty goes both ways here, and obviously questions (both initial and followup) that aren't intellectually honest, aren't the ones I have in mind when I say that expanding upon ones sources is something that one should be ready to do here.
Anyhow, this is just one man's (and semi-research librarian's, which explains my orneriness with this issue :P) opinion. I could be completely in the minority here (and that's ok!), but I think a discussion about how we use sources in our answers here is a good one to have in any case. So let's discuss this, and in the process, hopefully we can all help each other to becoming better historians and students of history.
TL;DR: I think it's essential that when providing answers on /r/AskHistorians, we are prepared and willing to expand upon and explain our sources when necessary, but have noticed a lack of this effort lately.
Looking through this and the linked posts/comments, this is all great advice and a great breakdown of the importance of citing sources and what sources are. But can we also take a step back and make sure not to take ourselves too seriously?
This is, after all, the internet, and highly informal. Correct and supportable answers, especially in a sub like this, are what make it great. But the other side of that coin is that neither I nor anyone else here is writing publishable research. My biggest fear about this subreddit is that at some point, someone is going to start trying to punish me for not doing extensive primary and secondary research for every post and citing everything specifically and formally.
I know, I know, I read this part of the post too:
It isn't always enough to just name a book or an article you've read when providing an answer. Not every answer needs a source citation with page numbers or a in-depth analysis of the historiography surrounding a topic. However, one should not balk at providing further explanation behind why a particular source was chosen or what specifically that historian or source used to reach their conclusion.
But I have two things to say about that:
Maybe it is enough much more often than it isn't. When general questions about the causes of the Civil War, or the nature of slavery, or the war's importance in the eyes of Europeans (this one is extremely popular for some reason), the answers are not encapsulated in sources but in massive historiographies, and my answers are based on large personal syntheses of those historiographies. Specific primary sources in answers to questions like this are illustrative, not comprehensive. A request for specific citations and references encapsulating the entire response to such a question is, frankly, unreasonable in the context of an informal internet forum. I will happily provide reading suggestions (and have) to any poster's content, but if they want sources proving a broad point incontrovertibly, they can root through the historiography for them. I know my examples above are limited to my own range of expertise, but overall I see a lot of very broad questions on this sub.
If we are going to behave like the quote above suggests (and it is a good thing, IMO), let's actually do it. Let's not punish posts which are unsourced just for being unsourced, unless there are follow up questions or the answer is controversial or dubious. Let's promote detail, analysis, and expertise while not forgetting where we are and what kind of forum this is. But let's go even further. Let's cultivate a culture where responders are expected to be prepared to support their claims but where observers also fully understand what that means in this context, that historical study is an immensely collective process. Questions rarely are answerable by one or a few sources but often by collections of sources which may be massive (and, by the way, not available digitally) and which often combine the work of many scholars simultaneously. When a responder here throws out a book (or books) when prompted for a source or support, that can very well be because a book is necessary to fully understand the claims being made.
I realize it's a suggestion for a very organic and therefore uncertain process. And let me reiterate that I think the source issue is an extremely important one for the future success of this sub. But I also urge caution, because /r/askhistorians will begin eating itself if we take the source question too far. Let's tread lightly.
I work lots. I write answers here for funzies. I provide solid sources, and I back shit up when asked (feel free to fact check the veracity of this claim by searching my reply history to this sub). That said, again, I do this for funzies, and lately real life has pushed my interaction with my favorite sub to the side, so maybe I don't get precisely what is being said here. I don't understand the beef against supplying sources and moving on. Ultimately, if you want to hound me for sources, then start by at least reading a review of the damned book I cited. The day defending my bib becomes mandatory for a solid answer that reflects general consensus within the field is the day I unsub. After-all, Funzies.