694
Accidentally ruthless (startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago

It's not that you shouldn't cite them, it's that you shouldn't use them as a source at all because they're considered unreliable for the subject you're working on.

Depending on the point you've reached in your learning career, you might not be equipped to detect and criticize an outdated source.

Some fields also evolve so quickly that what was considered a fact just 20 years ago might have been superseded 5 years later and again 5 years later so the only info that's considered reliable is about 10 years old and everything else must be ignored unless you're working on a review of the evolution of knowledge in that field.

[-] tuhriel@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 9 months ago

And what do you do if you want to reference how fast the field moves, or why certain methods are not done anymore, but where found 'good enough' back in the days. You would still have to use the old source and cite them...

An absolute cut off doesn't teach you anything...a guidance, how to identify good sources from bad or outdated ones would be much better

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

I don't imagine a paper of that scope would have such a restriction.

this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
694 points (97.8% liked)

People Twitter

4809 readers
1311 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS