Editing Reffer madness
From WikiDotMako
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
=== classes of refs === | === classes of refs === | ||
implying the reference is viewed positively and as a source of accuracy/legitimacy: | |||
:'based (in some part) on', 'uses as positive reference/proof', 'uses as negative reference/proof' | |||
:'discounts/criticizes', 'promotes/supports', 'attempts to prove', 'attempts to disprove' | |||
:'cites as transmitter of fundamental cite' | |||
:: <sj> there's actually a lot of conflation of proximal reference with original source that goes on when one is lazy or pressed for time leading at times to the wrong people being recognized for discoveries when this was not their intent | |||
::: <jgay> _sj_, yeah, that is really common. | |||
:the anti-ref: 'presents a different and possibly incompatible perspective' | |||
: 'used as inspiration for this section' v. 'referred to for research but provided no inspiration for any section' | |||
anti-ref: | |||
Line 101: | Line 91: | ||
#poison cite - intended to reframe the real meaning of the cited work; cite doesn't really say what it's imputed to say | #poison cite - intended to reframe the real meaning of the cited work; cite doesn't really say what it's imputed to say | ||
#misleading cite - intended to confuse the course of a discussion; cite doesn't affect the argument the way it's implied to | #misleading cite - intended to confuse the course of a discussion; cite doesn't affect the argument the way it's implied to | ||
== asides == | == asides == |