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.
It's like the world is stuck in certain time zones, and nothing can get them out of it. US politics thinks its the 70's. Afghanistan is in the 1300's. Academia is 1980's at best.
Beats APA (American psychobabble association, 2021) whose citation method is widely regarded (A. Arthur, B. Bennet & C. Cumberpatch 2021; D. Dingleberry, E. Exasperato, F. Fungible 2020) as "disrupting the flow of any sentence it appears in", as explained by Geovanni, Humphryes and Ignatio (1992).
For those who haven't figured it out, it's a trap.
If you provide the evidence, "well, that's not conclusive is it." The more evidence you produce the more they'll find wrong. "One of your links was to a twitter account of someone with a Russian sounding name so everything you presented is invalid." You will never achieve the standard required that they demand. It's sort of like when fundamentalists say "God exists because a banana is shaped that way" but your mountains of opposing evidence isn't good enough because they have a bad-faith standard of proof requirement.
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.
The very same academics tell me they know all sorts of advanced technology.
It's like the world is stuck in certain time zones, and nothing can get them out of it. US politics thinks its the 70's. Afghanistan is in the 1300's. Academia is 1980's at best.
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!
Beats APA (American psychobabble association, 2021) whose citation method is widely regarded (A. Arthur, B. Bennet & C. Cumberpatch 2021; D. Dingleberry, E. Exasperato, F. Fungible 2020) as "disrupting the flow of any sentence it appears in", as explained by Geovanni, Humphryes and Ignatio (1992).
wat
exactly.
APA (an evil organisation) has a style where you put the citations and year in brackets in the sentence itself, and then at the end of the paper too.
It makes it harder to read and ugly to look at, for no good reason. It hurts every editing bone in my body.
The sources in the back are a different style.
I had a professor say I didn't cite enough sources. So I wrote home a history style paper. He has since relented.
For those who haven't figured it out, it's a trap.
If you provide the evidence, "well, that's not conclusive is it." The more evidence you produce the more they'll find wrong. "One of your links was to a twitter account of someone with a Russian sounding name so everything you presented is invalid." You will never achieve the standard required that they demand. It's sort of like when fundamentalists say "God exists because a banana is shaped that way" but your mountains of opposing evidence isn't good enough because they have a bad-faith standard of proof requirement.
The goal is to get you to waste your time.
"my source is that I made it the fuck up"
Why are plants looking for accounts?