Difference between revisions of "Reffer madness"

From WikiDotMako
(New page: == on irc == For discussions liek this we really need a tangents/talk channel and a get-shit-done channel. : every chan should have a get-shit-done channel. what to name it? sj :: ## ten...)
 
(start)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
== on reffing ==
 
== on reffing ==
 
=== 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.
  
  

Revision as of 05:38, 7 October 2008

on irc

For discussions liek this we really need a tangents/talk channel and a get-shit-done channel.

every chan should have a get-shit-done channel. what to name it? sj
## tends to mean off-topic -jgay
so what means more-on-topic? sj

CITE UNSEEN

on reffing

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.


types of cites

  1. nocite - influential work is used but not referenced or cited.
  2. noncite - incluential work is referenced in text but not in a cite
  3. anticite - citing a work to indicate it was read or reviewed as a potential reference, but could not be used anywhere in the work
  4. fauxcite - a random cite to make a section look better reffed than it is, not related
  5. selfcite - citing self's work as prior art; one can cite all of one's prior publications if one is godo at this, in each new work
  6. bibliocite - a cite to indicate a work was part of the reading/background
  7. middlecite - an intermediary who is citing the underlying original source, but was the work directly read by the author. there can be many layers of middleciting
  8. poison cite - intended to reframe the real meaning of the cited work; cite doesn't really say what it's imputed to say
  9. misleading cite - intended to confuse the course of a discussion; cite doesn't affect the argument the way it's implied to

I AM THE ANTICITES

to come...