I endorse Anthony's comments, and add that it may be useful to (re)introduce the (traditional and hierarchical but well-founded) distinction, where appropriate to the discipline, between "sources" (i.e., "primary sources" such as manuscripts) and "studies" (i.e., "secondary sources" such as academic monographs). To these may be added "datasets" (both qualitative and quantitative) as well as other categories as appropriate.
I endorse that CZ should be geared to empowering readers. In this connection, I cannot find anything more paradigmatic than the outstanding http://www.perseus.tufts.edu which offers online tools for readers to learn Latin and ancient Greek in connection with reading the classical texts (together in the original and in translation) on line. Our chosen remit too broad to permit so intensive a collaboration with the reader, but we have possibilities for this and, it could be argued, a responsibility. In this connection may I venture, as an expert, that categories are not hierarchies; and, as a novice, that fuzziness is not helpful. If Anthony's suggestion is adopted, it may be useful to provide ways for authors to include, and editors to verify, at least occasionally *annotated* bibliographies. In the best of all possible worlds, book titles could be linked to a CZ subsite that allows the reader to order them from (for example) amazon.com in such a way that CZ derives income should a reader purchase such a title as a result of a CZ article. Robert Cutler On Nov 07, Anthony Sebastian wrote: > Regarding source-citation density: > > Oliver Hauss on source-citations offers suggestions indicative of one view > of the goals of an online general encyclopedia of authoritative articles. > > I do not view source-citations as honorific tokens but as honorific asides, > nor as credit-indicating tokens but as credit-indicating asides. I view > source-citations as allowing interested knowledge seekers to expand their > knowledge by reading further on the topic that has the source-citation. The > mass of opportunity CZ can offer with source-citations increases directly > with the number of source-citations. A greater number of source-citations > provides greater opportunity for knowledge seekers to gain knowledge CZ > cannot provide, namely that gained from reading the books or documents cited > as sources. > > In addition to enhancing the quality of CZ?by providing a portal to > knowledge beyond itself?source-citations permit public assessment of CZ's > objectiveness and accuracy of description of the facts, which feedback CZ > needs for considerations of self-improvement. > > The density of source-citations for CZ articles would differ depending on > author-related and topic-related factors. Authors may differ on the extent > they feel the need to indicate the sources of their information, for a > variety of reasons. If an author can cover a topic drawing from a few > sources, she requires few source-citations. If she does not have a few > comprehensive sources to draw from, she must synthesize and therefore will > require more than a few source-citations to allow readers the opportunity to > add to or modify the synthesis, and facilitate their doing so. > > In that context, I would encourage CZ to include in its architecture > facilities that make it easy for authors to deal with citing sources, so > their attention could focus on writing with coherence and grace. > > Anthony.Sebastian > > > > > > _________________________ > Anthony Sebastian, MD > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [preferred email address] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver Hauss > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Citizendium-l] Several issues vis-a-vis WP and design > > A list of 50+ references is ok for a scientific article. In an > encyclopedic work, I think that it should be enough to reference the key > take-home points. Unlike an academic publication, it is not necessary > -barring original research- to clearly demonstrate what is the author's > work and what has been found by others: The author is merely > paraphrasing the work of others. Likewise, it is not necessary, like in > a review article, to attribute the honor of the key findings in a field > to the right people. We're hopefully unlikely to have incidents of "You > didn't acknowledge MY MILESTONE publication in YOUR review, henceforth, > you don't exist for me!" > > I think that massive reference lists for articles e.g. in popular > culture can sometimes result from challenges to the article: > Inflationary use of crystal ball accusations being countered with > inflationary referencing. We don't need to reference that water is wet > and that its formular is H2O, and when we can assume that the average > person accessing an article about a movie will already know that the > director's first name is Steven and his last name happens to be > Spielberg, we don't need to reference that either, in my eyes. But I've > seen myself search three independent scientific publications to provide > a foundation of a single point in a science-fiction article as not being > complete humbug -however, I didn't include them as a reference but > mentioned them on the talk page. > > Oliver > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag > > von Derek Lyons > > Gesendet: Montag, 6. November 2006 23:41 > > An: Ori Redler > > Cc: [email protected] > > Betreff: Re: [Citizendium-l] Several issues vis-a-vis WP and design > > > > > > On 11/6/06, Ori Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >In WP, and also here, those are very much in vogue, probably as part > > of the effort to show >that WP (or CZ) is a credible source > > of information. The problem is that footnotes tend to >hinder > > readability. I think we need to find a way to make notes less > > prominent (although I'm >not sure exactly how). > > > > Footnoting and bibliographies can also be taken *too* far. I > > forget which one, but I recently came across an article on a > > semi-popular topic that had *57 footnotes* for a three screen > > long article. (Then the bibliography covered another two > > screens - all of the cites other websites, and over half of > > them 404ed.) > > > > D. > > _______________________________________________ > > Citizendium-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citi> zendium-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
