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).
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).
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.