Citation Isn't Explanation

Einstein said something close to "If you can't explain it to an eight year old, you don't understand it". I'm going to go one simpler since I'm not Einstein, and say "If you can't explain it at all, you don't understand it".

I appreciate it when a piece of non-fiction is informative and expresses an opinion. I appreciate it when an opponent in an argument is informative and expresses an opinion. What I don't appreciate, and what I suspect no one appreciates, is when an individual outsources all responsibility for their side of the conversation to somebody else. This is the worst in internet comment sections, but people also do it in spoken conversations. It's done heavily in articles even from respected journals, and to a massive extent in academic papers.

If you're going to write something informative, research the issue using whatever resources you want, including life experience, and then present it your version to the reader. If you can't figure out how to say it in a way that's different from your resources, there's no reason to write. This way of thinking is in direct opposition to the majority of online articles I've read lately, which are basically citation MadLibs, a series of blanks surrounded by placeholder text where all the important stuff is replaced with    (link)   . Whenever a major point needs to be made, an argument needs to be levied, or evidence needs to be provided, you get a lame sentence with this kind of text letting you know to quit whatever you're doing because the author is done teaching. 

This writing style is weakening people's ability to think critically, and to express written communication effectively. If someone else will take care of the important info, that saves you the work of explaining things. If you don't have to explain things, that saves you the work of understanding things. That is not a good way to communicate, and a reader shouldn't have to do research to understand your writing... that research is what you should have done before you wrote.

An album review containing 29 outside links. From the horrible website Pitchfork.

I'm not saying people shouldn't consult other resources - quite the opposite, research the hell out of the issue if you want. But once you have consulted whatever supporting materials, it's time to organize that info into something concise and consolidated and give some original insight. Do the research, then report. If you must cite an outside source, do an in-text citation like this (author, page number, title, whatever helps) so that the reader has less work to do instead of more... they can skip to precisely what idea you're citing instead of reading the whole book. It's safe to assume the following:

• Everyone knows about Google and can verify what you wrote if they want to
• Most people don't wanna do research when they're bopping around Facebook
• If you don't understand it, you shouldn't try to explain it to other people
• If you simplify things, more people will understand them
• If you don't have time to completely read a link you cited, neither do your readers

Most importantly, it's dishonest to send people to a webpage unless you already read through it. More bad news: if that webpage made any big crazy claims and linked that claim to an outside reference, you have to read that page too. I know it's inconvenient, but my life experiences are leading me to believe that people are becoming less capable of critically evaluating information for truth, and explaining it later. Don't be a person that never helps anyone and keeps referring them to someone else, don't be Comcast customer service.