Difference between revisions of "Reffer madness"

From WikiDotMako
Line 6: Line 6:
**: the only book I ever borrowed from the Harvard Physics Library without returning [[User:Sj|Sj]]
**: the only book I ever borrowed from the Harvard Physics Library without returning [[User:Sj|Sj]]
** Ina Spiegel-Ruesing. 1977. ''Bibliometric and content analysis.''
** Ina Spiegel-Ruesing. 1977. ''Bibliometric and content analysis.''
Social Studies of Science, 7:97-113.  
Social Studies of Science, 7:97-113.
* [http://www.cs.umass.edu/~mwick/ Papers by Michael Wick]
== on irc ==
== on irc ==

Revision as of 05:43, 7 October 2008

From a 10-6-2008 discussion on #openlibrary on irc.freenode.net
Reffer madness part I-II.

Papers cited

  • An annotation scheme for citation function by Simone Teufel, Advaith Siddharthan, Dan Tidhar (2006)
    • John M. Ziman. 1968. Public Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the Social Dimensions of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
      the only book I ever borrowed from the Harvard Physics Library without returning Sj
    • Ina Spiegel-Ruesing. 1977. Bibliometric and content analysis.

Social Studies of Science, 7:97-113.

on irc

For discussions like 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


on reffing

Different ways of saying the same thing: revisit until all is self-similar and beautiful.

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'

uses of sources

"I am relying on this source"
"I am refuting this source"
"I found this a source of amusement"
"this source was in my pile of library books at the end of the day, like the extra screws left over when you're done putting your whatsit back together"

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


to come...