Let's make citing a source more easy..

[elkitch]

For to long I am studying and one thing that has bugged me forever is citing. Many teachers and professors want the list of cited sources perfect according to the citing rules. If you mess this up to much the paper will not even graded. I think there's an easy way to change all this and I wonder why it isn't in use yet.

 

Usually I try to use the apa norm (as much as possible), but this has a couple disadvantages:

 

1) Many different people, many different interpretations of the apa citing rules.

There are quite alot of different resources that can be cited: books, websites, emails, reports, etc and they all have their own way of being noted in the resource list. And the reference intext: was it (Jones, 2006) or (Boeing Research, 2006)? Do your fellow groupmembers also interprete the apa in the same way?

 

2) It can be difficult to find the needed information.

So who exactly wrote this nameless article on that website? Is this a co-author I should mention? In what *&^%*^%* year has this article been written? it must be somewhere!

 

3) Writing the referencelist can be time consuming
Yes, there is textsoftware that can create this somewhat automatically. But they are often not compatible with Open Office for instance. And again it requires filling in the information.

 

So why not ake things easier and turn it around: not the person who uses the source has to write down the reference in a perfect way, but the author of the source has to!

 

Example: Bert Schmertstra writes an article for a magazine about the increasing number of bikes being stolen in Amsterdam lately. At the top of the article (or the end) he writes the correct way to cite his source. In this case:

Schmertstra, B. (2009, June 3). Bikes, they are like liquid steel. Bikes and Buddism, 113(4), x-x.

 

So whenever I use his article all I have to do is:
- type it over
- copy paste from internet

 

Also each website should post the correct way to cite their articles (in a generic way).
Example: "If you want to cite from our website use:
Animals Behaviour Institute. (2003). (title). Retrieved (date) from (url)

 

Advantage:
- the author only once has to write the perfect way to cite his work, instead of 100 people citing (=effort + room for mistake)

- the author has the responsility to use a document with the standard citing rules (is there worldwide consensus? let's create it!)
- isnt it nice when people cite correct to your work?

- most scientific work and general information is found online. So all you have to do is copy-paste the "how to cite me" text, adapt the pagenumber and other info and you are done!

Edited March 9, 2013 by elkitch

[CharonY]

Well, for scientific papers (i.e. journal articles) or other periodicals this is pretty much the norm. Most people use reference software to download the reference in a generic format and then format their references according to the journal they want to submit their article to. As do many bloggers, although some non-scientific journals still make a mess out of it (i.e. by not providing references at the end of their article, but I digress).

 

Non-scientific sources are usually not indexed very well, and can be edited any time. As such, links are probably more useful rather than trying to cite them in a similar way. And besides, most non periodical internet sources may amount to "stuff some random dude/ette wrote that may or may not be based on primary sources".

Edited March 9, 2013 by CharonY

[CirclesAndDots]

Quote: " Many teachers and professors want the list of cited sources perfect according to the citing rules. If you mess this up too much the paper will not even be graded."

 

Elkitch, you are heard.

 

In an effort to standardize much of the creative process is bastardized. Privileging form over content seems a general social trend (Perhaps informed by market values and practices.) What your professor is essentially asking for is a template, an image; something that is a social product first and an individual creation second.This kind of cultural collectivism is killing individual voice; and to what end? The war on piracy and plagiarism, like the War on drugs, has had Orwellian consequences.

 

While my aim here is not to derail your post, I couldn't resist commenting on a symptom of a grave social sickness.

 

Re-orienting the responsibility of standardizing a citation to the author seems a reasonable move. If being credited is such a concern of the author than they should bear the burden of creating the means to credit them.

Edited March 14, 2013 by CirclesAndDots

[Genecks]

I like the American Medical Association format. It seems to work well for many things, and it looks aesthetic. Oh, and I use Zotero... but I also check the formatting of whatever I paste to see if it is in line with the proper formatting of the style, such as APA 6th edition. There are, indeed, some technical issues of which librarians need to be asked and referenced to. Librarians are useful for asking questions, such as how to conduct proper citations. Otherwise, the librarians will/can find someone who knows the answer. Whenever there is a particular formatting issue, I'll direct my questions to a local librarian who can point me to a more concrete way of how the citation should occur. There are definitely times when the style guides don't provide the answer but there is an answer. For most undergrad work, these issues do not come up unless an instructor if giving the students a very, very hard time.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Genecks

[Josh M]

 

 

"And the reference intext: was it (Jones, 2006) or (Boeing Research, 2006)? Do your fellow groupmembers also interprete the apa in the same way?"

It's not a matter of interpretation, and it's the name and year whether it's a book, academic article, news article, website, etc. Suppose Rodriguez, Wasserman and Kotlowitz also work for Boeing and published in 2006. Rodriguez might disagree with Jones and then you'd reference Boeing Research, 2006 disagreeing with itself. You reference an author to represent an idea, and anyone who disagrees with that idea can challenge them, so that author takes on a risk-reward relationship between embarrassment and credibility. Boeing Research might sponsor Jones' research or write his paycheck, but would not list itself as the author without putting it through some procedure defining official approval, and then the name Jones would be on a long list of names, or not even present.

>>"It can be difficult to find the needed information. So who exactly wrote this nameless article on that website? Is this a co-author I should mention? In what *&^%*^%* year has this article been written?"

That's probably the entire reason your professors require that format - it's probably not worth citing. Citing without an author name partially undermines the purpose of peer-review. The existence of a name for every new idea is part of how scientists get a feel for which researchers are reliably objective or sporadically brilliant. The risk of being the author to an idea is much of what makes researchers and reporters think before they publish.

"So why not make things easier and turn it around: not the person who uses the source has to write down the reference in a perfect way, but the author of the source has to!"

I could imagine a rule where authors listed their own articles in their "works cited" page, either as the first or last citation, or even alphabetically placed but with an asterisk or something. Citing them in other journals would require reformatting anyway though. Many Journal sites already have a "cite this text" link that opens up MLA and APA formatting for the articles, which I like as a peripheral feature. More should do that, and I expect eventually it will be standard.

Edited May 13, 2013 by brodmannstwentysecond

[imatfaal]

Well, for scientific papers (i.e. journal articles) or other periodicals this is pretty much the norm. Most people use reference software to download the reference in a generic format and then format their references according to the journal they want to submit their article to. As do many bloggers, although some non-scientific journals still make a mess out of it (i.e. by not providing references at the end of their article, but I digress).

 

Non-scientific sources are usually not indexed very well, and can be edited any time. As such, links are probably more useful rather than trying to cite them in a similar way. And besides, most non periodical internet sources may amount to "stuff some random dude/ette wrote that may or may not be based on primary sources".

 

I would agree if you said non-academic rather than non-scientific; in the law we have been referencing and citing journals and reports for donkeys years (when you scientist dudes were still writing in Latin! - admittedly we haven't progressed much since then). In the Law sometimes correct citing is completely vital to an article, note or opinion; in science it gives foundation and credit for an idea - it is almost genealogical, whereas in law it goes towards showing the validity of an argument. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in many walks of life and empirical proof is the only real measure - but in law, if the authority is a higher court speaking directly on the question, then it is binding on all but an even higher court or possibly the legislature and can prove your argument.

[CharonY]

Excellent point. I (obviously) have not thought of that.