3 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: We're back! And We've Brought Updates
I haven't noticed that specifically. I've noticed that people occasionally link to non-scientific sources and I'm not a fan, but I've been trying to carefully wade through those and see whether the article was written by or in consultation with someone in the 4 fields of anthropology.
Comment by the_gubna at 28/06/2023 at 23:43 UTC
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Appreciate the reply.
I wouldn’t say it’s a huge problem, it’s just been something I’ve noticed more on this sub than similar ask subs. Someone will write a comment that seems more or less correct, at a surface level, but where something doesn’t quite sit right about the way they’re phrasing something. Then I go to check the source cited, and it either doesn’t support (or in some cases seems to contradict) the point they’re trying to make.
It may also just be that I’m tuned to pick up “non-anthropological” writing in ways that I don’t in other disciplines. Perhaps if I checked the sources of other ask subs more rigorously I’d see a similar trend.
Edit: For more info, in the cases I’ve seen it seems to be an answerer who seemingly read the title or abstract (ie, has a basic familiarity with Google scholar) without actually checking the content of the paper. Again; I would imagine this is pervasive on Reddit and I just don’t see it elsewhere.