Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
blog.cr.yp.to
Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#2If 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.
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#3An extremely detailed look at various ways to do bibliographic references in a text. And yes, digital changes everything again.
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#4If 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.
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.
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#5If 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.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#6"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.
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#7I 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 ;-)
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#8I 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 rea…
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.
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#9"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 o…
[deleted]
Re: Bibliography keys: It's as easy as [1], [2], [3]
#10If 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.
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.
Who cares how tooltips print? I happen to be a (millennial) academic. I cannot remember the last time I actually printed an article.