🚀 [Feature] Optional sources field for a more factual discussion in commentaries

[DennisHack]

🚀 Feature

Add a field for sources in addition to the comment-field.

User Problem

Discussion shall be on a more factual base. Sources are a essential part of raising the quality and support elucidation and more structured and senseful discusssions
So, let's invite the users to leave a additional source with an open field for sources/proofs/ ets. It shall not obligatory to add a source to a comment, but it reminds people to give sources for claims.

Implementation

add box/field to add source/sources under the comment and show it afterwards.

Design & Layout

or with source:

Validation

Sources are sources, it is essential for every factual discussion

Additional context

Questions? Please contact me

[alina-beck]

Great feature! 👍

I like the idea of having sources for comments – it would also be great to have them for posts! The design looks good, too. Just a few ideas:

The sources as Embeds (with description and image, instead of just links) are big, so if we list more than one it might become hard to read and take away attention from the actual content. Two possible solutions would be:

• list just the links (this is also easier to implement from a technical perspective)
• make a button to expand and collapse the sources (then we need to be careful to distinguish this button from the comment expand and comment collapse button)

Instead of using a textarea for adding the sources I would prefer a one-line input field and add the links one by one (so, we'd have an input field and a + button, a bit like the social media links in the settings), then it gets easier to save them separately and design them in different ways. 😉

@DennisHack it looks like it should be possible to also add a short text to each source? Like "Dieser Song inspiriert mich dabei ganz besonders" in the example above? In that case I'd definitely go for the above solution, with two inputs for each source – one for the link, one for the description.

How does that sound to you?

[ogerly]

but there are a lot of questions that come up...
what is the difference between a link under a post with a source reference ? only the "source" in front of it?
it does not necessarily have to be a source.
how do you deal with users who want or need to specify multiple sources?
should the preview for the link graphically differ from the embedded links?

[alina-beck]

I think you're right @ogerly – we should distinguish more between links in the content and sources. So I would propose to not use embeds for the sources at all but instead make it a simple list. I do think it could be valuable to add a "note" to it and then have two separate input fields and a + button to add more than one.

Then users could add something like:

• This is the article I was referring to: https://medium.com/@elad/a-complete-guide-for-responsive-images-b13db359c6c7
• I also recommend this source, for background information: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Multimedia_and_embedding/Responsive_images

what do you think @ogerly and @DennisHack?

[ogerly]

I can say little about the graphic one.
but we need an order.
I would suggest that when a source is given.
an additional field appears. With an explanation.
we need the clean link to get the author, title and date from the page if there is one. we should do this to keep the basic standard. and then there can be a field where every user can enter an additional text.

Quelle :)

the royal road would be of course this :)
so similar to the answering ...

[Tirokk]

Haven’t we agreed to not have this? @DennisHack @Human-Connection/hc-dev-team
Like @roschaefer said? And I would agree …
Then it shouldn’t be on the priority list at all …

[alina-beck]

I don't know. I just heard that you had a discussion about it and some people were not happy with the approach but I still think it is a good idea and haven't heard (or read) the reasoning against it.

Could somebody please sum up here what you discussed and why you came to the conclusion not to implement this feature before we close it?

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.