Expertise, sources, and the noble art of saying “I don’t know”

[Fermenter]

Can we establish one norm before somebody confidently poisons a pickle, rewires a wall or diagnoses a stranger from three sentences?

I do not want every casual recommendation to require citations. “I liked this book” does not need a bibliography. “I have done this repair twenty times” is useful information. But experience, expertise, evidence and confidence are not interchangeable.

My suggestion is simple: say what kind of claim you are making. If it is personal experience, say that. If you know professionally, say what field you actually know. If the stakes are high, sources matter more. If you are guessing, admitting that improves the answer.

And if somebody corrects you and they are right, “I was wrong” should be treated as normal forum maintenance, not a public execution.

What would you add?

[Strata Field Reader]

I’d like a norm that people distinguish experience from expertise.

[Marginalia]

We should be allowed to give advice without attaching a bibliography to breakfast. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Coffee-Kriti]

Yes, provided the scope is clear. the phrase ‘I don’t know’ needs better public relations. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Bug Report Fiction]

I care most when advice has a real safety or financial consequence. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Fermenter]

That distinction between ordinary recommendations and high-stakes advice is the important one for me. I do not need a citation for soup; I do want more care before someone gives medical, electrical or food-safety certainty.

[Briefs And Books]

Personal experience is useful, but it should be labeled as personal experience.

[Safety 81]

That is the part I agree with. I don’t want every thread turning into source court.

[Garden In Order]

Yes, especially that point. A link can help, but a link is not automatically evidence. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Prison Book Bars]

I’d rather someone say ‘this worked for me’ than pretend one example proves a rule. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Bookish92]

Right, and I’d add one thing. People with professional experience should be able to say so without becoming the forum’s unpaid help desk. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Breath-Breakfast]

That sounds about right to me. Corrections should be ordinary.

[Paperback-Postpunk]

The standard can change with the stakes. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Radiorook]

That is the part I agree with. If we are arguing about an album, nobody needs peer review. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Wing Chun Wrench]

Yes, especially that point. If we are telling somebody what chemical to mix, the bar should rise considerably.

[Type-Yogi]

That seems like a good boundary. i like practical expertise, but practical experts can still be wrong outside their lane. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Civic Fish Stories]

Right, and I’d add one thing. Maybe the rule is simply to show your level of certainty.

[Tilewalker]

That sounds about right to me. I’d encourage people to ask ‘how do you know?’ without making it an accusation. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Cleaver]

Nobody should have to perform humility, but some actual humility would be useful. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Ritual-Notes]

That is the part I agree with. Sources are most useful when they address the specific claim, not when they are thrown like furniture. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Choralist]

Yes, especially that point. Let’s make changing your mind socially cheap. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Marginalia]

I’d like a norm that people distinguish experience from expertise. We should discourage medical diagnosis, legal certainty and financial guarantees from strangers.

[Coffee-Kriti]

Right, and I’d add one thing. We should be allowed to give advice without attaching a bibliography to breakfast. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Bug Report Fiction]

That sounds about right to me. The phrase ‘I don’t know’ needs better public relations. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Strata Field Reader]

I care most when advice has a real safety or financial consequence. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open. Technical claims can often be tested. Say what you tried and what happened.

[Briefs And Books]

That is the part I agree with. Confidence should not be treated as a credential. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Safety 81]

Yes, especially that point. Personal experience is useful, but it should be labeled as personal experience.

[Garden In Order]

Yes, from me. i don’t want every thread turning into source court. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Fermenter]

Right, and I’d add one thing. A link can help, but a link is not automatically evidence. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Coffee-Kriti]

That sounds about right to me. I’d rather someone say ‘this worked for me’ than pretend one example proves a rule. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Bug Report Fiction]

People with professional experience should be able to say so without becoming the forum’s unpaid help desk. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Fermenter]

That is the part I agree with. Corrections should be ordinary.

[Marginalia]

Yes, especially that point. The standard can change with the stakes. A good source should reduce confusion, not merely increase the number of tabs open.

[Fermenter]

If we are arguing about an album, nobody needs peer review. A professional title matters only inside the area it actually covers.

[Marginalia]

Right, and I’d add one thing. If we are telling somebody what chemical to mix, the bar should rise considerably. Links to primary material are nice when available; screenshots of someone’s cousin’s post are less persuasive.

[Fermenter]

That sounds about right to me. I like practical expertise, but practical experts can still be wrong outside their lane. Book and music arguments can remain gloriously evidence-resistant.

[Fermenter]

Maybe the rule is simply to show your level of certainty.

[Author]

Posts