Okay Rating

This article has an Okay rating. This article could use some expansion.

8 : 7

Rare footage of the elusive "citation". Biologists are unable to classify it due to lack of sources.

Ah, the useful but readily exploitable citation. A marking which many readers quickly pass off as fact.[1] It has been conclusively proven[2] that the citation can be easily exploited to produce meaningless results. Here are some examples of how they can be exploited, in decreasing likelihood of success:

  1. Reference a nonexistent book.[3]
  2. Reference a real book in a language your readers won't understand. (Ex. Citing an esperanto source in a deutsch dictionary.[4]
  3. Reference deadlinks.[5]
  4. Reference a nonexistent passage within a real book.[6]
  5. Reference a real book without stating the location within the book.[4]
  6. Reference another of your websites under a different domain.[7]
  7. Reference irrelevant material.[8]
  8. Reference irrelevant material but make it look relevant[9]
  9. Reference yourself.[10]

There are also other ways to increase likelihood of success, such as citing multiple sources.[11][12][13] The optimal way to exploit this is by citing three (or two) sources, as fewer[11][12] or more[11][12][13][14] may arouse suspicion and curiosity, respectively.

"The earth's flatness, the moon landings faked, and god existent are all undeniable truths."
Einstein, Hawking, Prof. Obscure, et al.

This site is more factually accurate than Wikipedia, and is paradox-free.[10]


  1. Smith, John. A study on human unawareness, 2004, p.266
  2. Ibid. p.44
  3. Smith, John. Nihil p.120
  4. 4.0 4.1 Smith, John. Nenio, 2005
  5. Totally legit site
  6. Ibid. p.999
  7. Verifiability and it's inherent flaws
  8. CIA
  9. Relevance Homepage
  10. 10.0 10.1 Citation
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Google
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 DuckDuckGo
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 Yahoo
  14. Bing