[HN Gopher] Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
___________________________________________________________________
Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
Author : stargrave
Score : 30 points
Date : 2024-06-12 19:34 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.cr.yp.to)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.cr.yp.to)
| esafak wrote:
| If your article is digital, just make it so that the full
| citation is revealed on hover (as a "tooltip"), so users don't
| have to jump back and forth.
|
| edit: Tooltips supplement the traditional reference section. They
| are not to be printed.
| creer wrote:
| Fair and useful. But then how well do tooltips print? Is the
| printed version complete? If the tooltip is just the citation
| or footnote, then the printout is complete.
| g15jv2dp wrote:
| Who cares how tooltips print? I happen to be a (millennial)
| academic. I cannot remember the last time I actually printed
| an article.
| creer wrote:
| Saved the PDF? Either way, it's great that it works for you
| - and that's not quite yet everyone. So the author might
| care.
| creer wrote:
| An extremely detailed look at various ways to do bibliographic
| references in a text. And yes, digital changes everything again.
| dash2 wrote:
| "Fundamentally, the problem with this is that it's actively
| encouraging guesses to override the communication of ethically
| required citation information."
|
| This is silly. 99% of the time, if you cite Autor et al. (2013),
| it'll be _that_ Autor et al. (2013). The other 1%, it 'll be
| another David Autor paper. The case when you guess something
| wrong, and really it's a different author, who then gets hurt,
| probably happens once a year. Meanwhile, Autor et al. (2013)
| immediately lets me understand what you're referencing, which
| [57] does not.
| jll29 wrote:
| I don't buy the argument - when I pick the wrong "Wilson" in
| "Wilson (2002)" then by the time I read the bibliography, I can
| see that I make a mistake. Has that ever happened? Not that I
| know, but I saw something else, without stepping in the trap,
| namely that the _same_ Wilson wrote more than one paper in 2002,
| and they cited the _other_ paper, not the one I first thought.
| Again, the reason I found out is that I read the references,
| otherwise I could not relate this incident.
|
| It's important to scan the references to check oneself if one
| agrees with the selection of references, or if the author(s)
| omitted important work that one knows and the authors did not
| know or did not want to cite due to a hidden agenda (selection
| bias), in which case one may email them to share additional
| references so that they cannot say "we never knew".
|
| I could accept numeric citekeys if and only if the HTML rendering
| shows me the full entry when hovering over it with the mouse
| cursor (as a "tool tip"); there is absolutely no need in the 21st
| century to manually scroll/jump to the end without coming back
| when you can shop the reference inline. Hypertext is there for
| you to make use of it (Berners-Lee [1], 2000)!
|
| References
|
| [1] https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999902745302121/cite
| ;-)
| jll29 wrote:
| I hope people get that the above triple indirection was
| actually tongue in cheek - a self-referential and self-
| satirical pun of how to shoot yourself in the foot.
|
| If HN had HTML I could have demonstrated the hover-over idea
| that I desribed, but then I respect HN's minimalism, and we all
| value the safety and absence of spam through not having HTML on
| here.
| nmadden wrote:
| One of the nice things about Tufte-Latex is that refs get put
| into margin notes right at the point of reference.
|
| Edit: example https://mirror.apps.cam.ac.uk/pub/tex-
| archive/macros/latex/c...
| bloopernova wrote:
| I wish hackernews supported references and footnotes.
|
| Semantically tagged so folks could style them as they wanted.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-13 23:01 UTC)