Is this answer about illegal immigrants supported by its evidence?

Question

I had an interesting discussion with the poster of a popular answer that has been in the Hot Network Questions for a couple of days. I think the discussion is important, so I'm copying it here to Meta as a means to get the views of others.

I'm not saying the answer is wrong (or correct.) I'm talking about requirements for sources.

I'm wondering what the community thinks.

The reason I'm including my comments here is because they summarize perfectly the views I wanted to express in this post.

---

Fiksdal: IMO this answer could be improved by including the actual numbers and hard statistics these statements are based on. Or at least some notable examples of numbers.

SalvadorDali: In your answer you told Numerous studies but provided nothing to back it up. All you have is some NY times article, and report that tells that innumerable studies have confirmed.

Fiksdal: The question is about statistics, this answer cites no statistics.

Fiksdal: @SalvadorDali Exactly. Can you imagine if someone posted an answer here, but the sources of such loose statements were Breitbart or Fox News? They would have (quite rightly) been downvoted and asked to provide hard numbers and statistics. Why should we hold the WSJ to a different standard? We know FN and BB are ideologically biased and dishonest, but are we just going to give the WSJ carte blanche? This is inappropriate for a skeptics site. This answer desperately needs hard statistics, and in the absence of that, it's very low quality as per the help centre, IMO.

rougon (OP): @Fiksdal, you are right, the WSJ journal is definitely biased--it's a conservative paper. If you look at the sources, they discuss the difficulty in looking at national crime statistics. Or how about: there are 0 legitimate places that provide statistics that undocumented immigrants commit more crime.

Fiksdal: @rougon I don't care what political affiliation the WSJ purports to have. I don't care who says what. This is Skeptics and for a question about statistics we need answers that cite hard statistics. I don't know why this is upvoted so highly. You're saying that there are no credible statistics on this. (I think I agree, BTW.) If that's the case, then how exactly did the WSJ come to their conclusions? Do you know? Or did you just take the WSJ at their word? Because that would be the opposite of skepticism, and completely contrary to the help centre. CC: @SalvadorDali

rougon: @Fiksdal Your comment seems to charge the WSJ with bias. If you reread the question, it only mentions statistics at the end. Also, if you look at the studies mentioned, stats are discussed, albeit more in passing than you would like. They may not have smoking gun stats, but the various studies and reports seem to show that there is a clear trend. Now, you are more a math person than me, but it still looks like pretty solid evidence, certainly enough to make it appropriate for the site.

Fiksdal: @rougon It's human nature to be biased. I'm charging all of us with bias. I know nearly nothing about the WSJ. And I haven't read the whole article you link to either. If the article cites hard statistics, then you need to include those in the answer itself. Yes, the question asks for statistics in the title itself by the word "likely". Probability is only assessed by hard numbers. When I Googled this, I found a Fox News article saying the opposite. But I didn't find the statistics convincing enough to be included in an answer. And you don't even mention a single number in your answer.

rougon: @Fiksdal Fair enough. I think we have different expectations about sources, evidence, and what the answer calls for.

Fiksdal: @rougon Clearly we do, if taking someone's word for how likely something is is your idea of skepticism.

rougon: @fiksdal I don't think I'd characterize my answer as blind trust in someone's word, but I respect and appreciate your commitment to quality statistics.

---

Does this answer have solid sources in accordance with the requirements put forward in the help centre?

The answer is highly upvoted, but so is the other answer saying "we don't know". Also, it seems likely that the Hot Network Questions has something to do with the scores here.

The OP has claimed that the question doesn't ask for statistics. The question asks for how "likely" something is. This is a scientific site, and what can "likely" mean, other than "statistically likely"? Do loose statements from a number of "credible" or authoritative people suffice?

Answer 1

I think this is an example of a very bad answer. In my opinion, this questions is important and hard, so it requires hard data to back up the answer. I have seen no such data.

This is why I criticize this answer:

• First of all it answers completely different question. OP asked Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit crimes. The first citation of the answer addresses immigrants (not illegal), the same is with second, third and forth. Only in the last article (only link is included), the author claims that the word illegal exists somewhere in the end of the article. BTW, as far as I know, at least 20% of US-based employees in Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many other big IT corporations are immigrants and legal immigrants are really different from illegal ones
• secondly, the question does not have a credible support. I am really new to this site, but as far as I understood Wall street journal, Washington post and other newspapers are mostly viewed as opinions (if they are not backed up by real data). American immigration council claims that innumerable studies have confirmed but I have not seen any support for this (if you have many studies, it would not be hard to include at least one or two)

Answer 2

I'm going to answer a slightly different question. Not "Is this acceptable?" but "Why haven't I taken any moderator action to delete it?"

The general policy on references is that they are required, they should be relevant.

However, there is no policy on moderator action whether the references are "good" or "reliable". That is appropriate, because the mods are not authorities on every topic who can rule on this.

We expect the answer to use sources that are more reputable than the sources in the question, but that doesn't mean taking mod action. There is no requirement for statistics, per se, but empirical evidence is something we look for. (This becomes difficult with some of the quotes and history questions, which causes some controversy.)

(Actually that question is practically a duplicate: Does SE.Skeptics specifically require "scientific" references?)

---

Stack Exchange has, as a bedrock, a philosophy that popular votes (+ accepted answers) are a reliable method of determining the best answer. Even though we know full well that that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that science is not resolved with a vote, we go along with this here. We have amassed a community of critical thinkers that assess the evidence provided, and I am generally pleased with the voting.

However, when you take a political issue, and share it on the Hot Questions Network, we sometimes get an influx of less critically minded people, and the system falters. Go and vote up this proposal to help resolve this issue.

Answer 3

I do not have an opinion on the question that triggered this meta question. Or, I do not wish to express an opinion on that here. I really do not have an opinion on the verity of the answer that triggered this question. I do have a slight opinion on the quality of the answer to that specific question, and that is being discussed well in some other answers here. But, I think that this meta question is bringing up an underlying assumption important enough to require an answer of its own.

Does every skeptics answer always require statistics? The OP is working with the assumption that the answer is yes, but I suggest that this position is not unanimous, nor is it well documented. On the contrary, the sources quoted by the OP in the answer seem to suggest the opposite. I have not (yet) found sources that explicitly support that position.

Therefore, I am skeptical that it can, currently, be well asserted, with sources, that every skeptics answer requires statistics. And, absent statistics to the contrary, I chose not to support that position.

Now, going into the assertions in a slightly more detailed way: The question did use the word "likely", and did state "I'll accept statistics..." Obviously the questioner did want well sourced statistics. Me too. That does not mean I will get it. My understanding of this Skeptics.SE is that, while questioners can want what they want, the best answers are not necessarily what the questioner wants, but the best information/scholarship on the topic. Perhaps the specific answer in question is not 'the best' because it does not contain accessible statistics that are well sourced, but it appears that one claim of the answerer is that such statistics do not exist. If that were the case, then it seems an answer in that vein does meet the quality standards as currently laid out in the Help and FAQ.

Unless the sources (FAQ and Help) are inaccurate, and need updating (possible), it would appear that the best course of action, for OP and those with similar inclinations on the specific question/answer pair, would be downvote. Not claiming that the answer is inappropriate for the site.

One likely counter to that argument, that is a bit off topic here but still relevant in this specific case, is that, with so many upvotes (almost certainly from 'drive by' HNQ visitors), a few downvotes will not have the desired impact. I say that is a different problem, with a different solution altogether, that is being discussed elsewhere.

Hope my cold style does not lead anyone to think I am cold toward any single person or group of people. This is fun for me, and I don't know you people.

Answer 4

As requested by Sklivvz, I'm posting an answer so that people can vote.

I believe this question requires hard statistics. It's a question about probability, so it needs actual numbers. I've already outlined my reasons for this for this in the question itself.

Since the answer features zero statistics or numbers, I don't believe it satisfies the criteria outlined in the help centre. It's a question that basically demands hard statistics.

If the article linked to in the answer does feature such numbers and they are edited into the answer, I will upvote and approve of the answer.

---

I've been asked to clarify why I believe this is not in accordance with the help centre. From the "How to answer" section:

What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that.

This question asks for likeliness or probability of something. Not quoting actual numbers at all fails to adress the question about likeliness or probability. Indeed, "more likely to" means "statistically more likely to". What else would it possibly mean, on a scientific site?

Links to external resources are encouraged, but please add context around the link so your fellow users will have some idea what it is and why it’s there.

OP says the reference does adress statistics, but these numbers are not included in the actual answer. These numbers are absolutely vital and need to be included in the answer. Readers should not have to go the referenced article to find these statistics.

Moreover, the FAQ dictates that all answers cite sources. This answer does. But not a statistical one. There is an attempt to answer a statistical question without referring to actual numbers. That is not a proper source, IMO. If the source itself does refer to statistics, they have not been included in the answer. Either way, there's a problem.

Again, if convincing statistics are added, I will upvote the answer and commend it.

If credible, relevant statistics don't' exist then the only scientific answer is "we don't know at present."

Answer 5

I believe this answer is a very good summary of the problems with the answer that prompted this discussion.

I agree it is a bad answer, that does not meet the quality standards of this community.

I also agree with this answer explaining why moderator intervention has not occurred for the post, and why it should not.

What is, in my opinion, missing from both of these answers is a suggestion for a course of action.

This particular problem happens to be fairly widespread among a variety of SE communities thanks to the HNQ list, albeit with different nuances specific to each community. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a really successful solution.

The best course of action remains to downvote an answer if you feel it doesn't meet the community standards, and, if possible, provide a better answer that does. This rarely fixes the problem of popular-but-poor-quality answers that have been artificially boosted by being on the HNQ list, but it can mitigate it.

Answer 6

If this is inappropriate for an answer, I will be happy to delete it, but I wanted to chance to defend whether or not my answer is inappropriate for the site.

I do not think that the original question demanded statistics, nor do I think they are necessary or, in this case, particularly available. When I began looking into the topic, I found one article from a generally-conservative paper that contradicted the line or argument that Trump offered, so I found that notable. I found another report by a non-profit that agreed. Then I found a news article that cited 4-5 studies that agreed. Any investigation I made returned the same answer: undocumented immigrants were less likely to commit crime. The uniformity of the trend seemed to outweigh the need for precise statistics.

In addition, several of the pieces mentioned how difficult it was to collect hard data on the subject. I appreciate wanting numbers, etc., but they seemed hard to pinpoint with any accuracy and (perhaps) unnecessary in light of the general findings.

If enough people would like, I would be more than happy to edit the answer to mention any of this, but I find the charge that it is unfit for the site to be a bit reactionary.

For the people who think my sources are dubious or untrustworthy, I would really like to see you produce a good source that contradicts my findings.

Answer 7

This looks like a big non-issue to me.

What does the question ask?

Are illegal immigrants more prone to committing crimes then the average US citizen?

It doesn't even ask for statistics directly, and "yes", "no", and "unknown" all seem likely perfectly acceptable answers to this question. The question does ask a question with an answer presumably based in statistics, so what is wrong with an answer that answers this question, with sources based on statistics? Anyhow, more on this below.

If we take a look at the full section from the How do I write a good answer?:

Answer the question

What, specifically, is the question asking for? Make sure your answer provides that – or a viable alternative. The answer can be “don’t do that”, but it should also include “try this instead”. Any answer that gets the asker going in the right direction is helpful, but do try to mention any limitations, assumptions or simplifications in your answer. Brevity is acceptable, but fuller explanations are better.

After reading some of the research, this looks like a "viable alternative". It does mention the "limitations" and "simplifications" of the sources (so I'm really not sure why this keeps being harped-on). One might argue that a fuller explanation is better, and "fuller" might include statistics, but there is a lot of said stats, and they do seem to require some interpretation to connect them to this specific question (remember, they are an alternative to direct stats, which are apparently unavailable).

"But I want statistics!"

Well, you're in luck! At least some of these sources have the statistics they used available, and because references are required, you can read them!

"Why not just let the statistics speak for themselves?"

I was under the impression specifically answering the question and showing why the sources back that answer was encouraged here. Anything less would seem like a dumbed-down version of the sources, which have both. Also, refer to earlier section about how these are alternative stats.

"But I want an answer that isn't binary, and shows the full spectrum!"

Well, I have more good news! This answer gives you some resources to make that answer! If you want this answer, what are you waiting for? Go ahead and post it!

"But I still don't think this answer is useful!"

Well, lucky for you, Stack Exchange thought to provide a system for this feedback! It's called voting, and it's very important. I'm not seeing anything here that makes this case special enough to require moderator intervention. There's also a bit of irony in expecting it to be remove for lack of statistics, when statistically the voting shows many people have found it useful, even before it was on the Hot on Network list.

Alternately if you are not looking for moderator intervention, I'm confused why commenting and voting were not sufficient to voice your concerns.