Presenting Evidence (wip)

Work in Progress (WIP) Rough Notes:

Introduction

This article explains how vbriefings.org handles citations and source attribution in its briefings. The aim is to maintain a high standard of rigor while keeping the writing clear and accessible for readers who use these briefs for exploration and advocacy.

Every substantive factual claim that is not trivial or universally known should be traceable to a specific source. How that source appears—in a footnote only, named in the text, or mentioned parenthetically—depends on how important the source’s identity is for understanding, trust, and later conversations about the brief.

At a minimum, writers should assume that readers may ask: How do you know that? Who says so? How strong is the evidence?

When a Citation Is Required

A source citation is required for any empirical or specific factual statement that a reasonable reader would not simply “know” or easily infer. This includes:

• Numerical estimates, survey results, and trends over time
• Specific dates, events, and policy details
• Technical definitions, specialized concepts, and non-obvious historical or philosophical claims
• Any claim likely to be contested, politically sensitive, or used directly in advocacy
• Any material derived from a discrete external work—such as a report, article, dataset, court case, or book—even when paraphrased
• Any direct quotation, close paraphrase, or summary of another author’s argument

In short, if a reader could reasonably ask “How do you know that?”, “Who says so?”, or “How strong is the evidence?”, the statement should have a citation.

Some statements do not need citations. These include:

• Highly stable, widely known facts
• Basic explanatory sentences that are synthesized from standard knowledge.
• Statements that explain your interpretation or express a moral view usually do not need citations. However, if they include specific factual claims, those parts must still be supported with sources.
• Statements that follow directly from reasoning, without introducing new factual claims.

Over-citing obvious or purely normative points harms readability without adding meaningful rigor. The default should be to cite anything specific, empirical, or potentially contentious.

Source Presentation Styles

Sources for claims can be presented in different ways depending on their role in the sentence, how visible they need to be to the reader, and whether the reader is likely to need to mention the source in conversation. A superscripted footnote alone may be enough when the source is simply there for verification. But when the identity of the source adds credibility, context, or persuasive force, it should be named directly—either at the start of the sentence or in parentheses. The choice is not about the quality of the evidence, but about how prominently the source needs to appear in the writing.

Practical Decision Process for Writers

For each factual statement, ask:

1. Does this claim need a citation? If it is non-obvious, empirical, or potentially contested, cite it.
2. Does the reader need to see the source name? If the source’s identity affects credibility or interpretation, include it inline.
3. If inline, should it be front-loaded or parenthetical?
   • Front-load when authority or perspective is central
   • Use parentheses when the source is helpful but secondary

Citation Style and Formatting.

Use MLA

tbd

Link Rot Avoidance

tbd

Source Quality and Selection

Not all sources carry equal evidentiary weight. When multiple sources are available, writers should prefer those that are more reliable, transparent, and methodologically sound.

Preferred sources (in general order):

• Peer-reviewed research, especially systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• Official statistics (government agencies, intergovernmental organizations)
• Primary sources (original datasets, court rulings, direct documents)
• Reputable institutional reports with clear methodology
• High-quality journalism with editorial standards

Use with caution:

• Opinion pieces or editorials (unless cited as opinion)
• Advocacy materials with unclear methodology
• Secondary summaries that do not clearly link to underlying data

Avoid when possible:

• Unsourced claims
• Aggregated or recycled content without verification

When using weaker or contested sources, this should be made clear in the text.

Representing Disagreement and Uncertainty

When credible sources disagree or estimates vary significantly, writers should avoid presenting a single figure as settled fact.

Instead:

• Attribute claims clearly
• Use ranges where appropriate
• Briefly signal uncertainty when it affects interpretation

The goal is to maintain credibility while accurately reflecting the state of knowledge.

Quotation and Paraphrase Integrity

• Direct quotations must be exact and enclosed in quotation marks
• Paraphrases must faithfully represent the original meaning
• Selective quoting that alters the original intent should be avoided

A source should reasonably recognize its position in how it is represented.

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

Whenever possible, cite primary sources (original studies, reports, datasets).

Secondary sources may be used when:

• The primary source is inaccessible or highly technical
• The secondary source accurately represents the primary findings

Where feasible, citing the underlying primary source is preferred.

Date Sensitivity and Updating

Writers should consider whether a claim is time-sensitive.

• Use the most recent reliable data available
• Include dates when recency affects interpretation
• Avoid presenting outdated information as current

Briefings should be periodically reviewed and updated where necessary.

Reuse and Consistency Across Briefings

When the same claim appears across multiple briefings:

• Use consistent sources where appropriate
• Maintain consistent phrasing unless adaptation is needed
• Ensure updates are reflected across all relevant content