The good thing about the Internet is it allows people to share, collect, and collate information. The bad thing is that the vast majority of this information is transitory. Here today, gone tomorrow.* if it isn't, it functionally is. People have to know that info is out there, and more importantly, how to access that info.
I could have the most accurate and up-to-date list of every single example of hypocrisy by every politician but it functionally doesn't exist if it's buried within a stack of papers in an overcrowded folder in an even more overcrowded filing cabinet stuffed between rows upon rows of identical filing cabinets within the basement of a building behind a door saying "Beware of the leopard." And the building is abandoned and in the bad part of town.
*A paper I read in my Master's program said something like 80% of hyperlinks are broken within 5 years. No I don't have a cite I read it years ago lol, grains of salt etc.
I think, as a concept they're nice. It's good to be able to have a way to read through the things a person is basing his writing on and see if there's any disconnect between what the work is saying and what the writing is saying.
Where it gets annoying for me is
SOURCE? SOURCE?? Do YoU hAvE a SoUrCe???
Where something will just be dismissed outright because it[1] doesn't[2] have[3][4][5] a million citations[6][7][8] suffused throughout a work[9]. It usually seems like a way to just get the writer lost in the weeds because if they do have sources then the person questioning them will just say "oh this source is biased. This one didn't use the right methodology."
I try to avoid getting into debates online, and if I do I just bug out pretty quick because I don't have the time to discuss anything like that.
History papers are often so full of sources that a single sentence fills the page. People still demand sources though, or greater explanation, because it's not what they want to hear or read.
I have actually enjoyed how websites just put links on words to various sources, so then it doesn't slow down the reading. That's the future, but so many want it to be the old ways.
The good thing about the Internet is it allows people to share, collect, and collate information. The bad thing is that the vast majority of this information is transitory. Here today, gone tomorrow.* if it isn't, it functionally is. People have to know that info is out there, and more importantly, how to access that info.
I could have the most accurate and up-to-date list of every single example of hypocrisy by every politician but it functionally doesn't exist if it's buried within a stack of papers in an overcrowded folder in an even more overcrowded filing cabinet stuffed between rows upon rows of identical filing cabinets within the basement of a building behind a door saying "Beware of the leopard." And the building is abandoned and in the bad part of town.
*A paper I read in my Master's program said something like 80% of hyperlinks are broken within 5 years. No I don't have a cite I read it years ago lol, grains of salt etc.
Citations are such an annoyance today. The system to make them are so archaic we have to use programs to properly do them.
I think, as a concept they're nice. It's good to be able to have a way to read through the things a person is basing his writing on and see if there's any disconnect between what the work is saying and what the writing is saying.
Where it gets annoying for me is
Where something will just be dismissed outright because it[1] doesn't[2] have[3][4][5] a million citations[6][7][8] suffused throughout a work[9]. It usually seems like a way to just get the writer lost in the weeds because if they do have sources then the person questioning them will just say "oh this source is biased. This one didn't use the right methodology."
I try to avoid getting into debates online, and if I do I just bug out pretty quick because I don't have the time to discuss anything like that.
I say as I make a post on a reddit-clone.
History papers are often so full of sources that a single sentence fills the page. People still demand sources though, or greater explanation, because it's not what they want to hear or read.
I have actually enjoyed how websites just put links on words to various sources, so then it doesn't slow down the reading. That's the future, but so many want it to be the old ways.
HTML was invented in 1990. It's sad that we're still at this point.
Ahhh good old Chicago formatting. I wish papers would just stick all of the citations in the back like monographs do.
The legal field has the same problem lol. Ffs write a paper and you expand it by 33% because of all the darn footnotes!