[Humanist] 27.888 citing

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Mar 17 07:33:38 CET 2014


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 888.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Giorgio Guzzetta <guzzettg at gmail.com>                     (71)
        Subject: Re:  27.886 citing

  [2]   From:    Miran gmail <miranhladnik1 at gmail.com>                     (54)
        Subject: Re:  27.886 citing


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:58:16 +0100
        From: Giorgio Guzzetta <guzzettg at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.886 citing
        In-Reply-To: <20140316071957.3A9AC6489 at digitalhumanities.org>


These are both interesting questions.

As for citing storify, I would go for some sort of a mix between an edited
collection and a website, such as

Proctor, Nancy et al. 2014
"Wikipedia and Museums (with Tweets)" Storyfy by Heather Hobma
Accessed March 14. http://storify.com/HeatherHobma/wikipedia-and-museums.

Although I agree in fact that authors should check their links at the
moment of publication, making the date of access unnecessary, I believe
that there is another issue, especially in the case of storify and similar
websites. Storify, and any online publication in general, but especially
storify - this is what makes it interesting - can be changed quite easily,
and often it will, adding more contributions etc. What is important is not
so much the integrity of the link but the version that was seen when the
writer of the essay was quoting it and making an argument out of it. So I
will definitely add the date when it was accessed.

Otherwise it would really be enough to add just the link and forget about
everything else, because all the informations you need about it can be very
easily found in the storify itself. Which brings me to the second question,
about the temptation not to cite because in the digital environment is
quite easy to find out who wrote what and when. I think it really depends
on where you are publishing. If it is an online publication, I am very
tempted to simply create a link and leave it at that, and avoid the stress
of properly citing as I used to do. I do this in blog entries, and I think
I would do it even in more structured online journal (if peer-reviewers
allowed me to do it, of course).

Ironically enough, as the storify example shows, this works better for
non-digital sources like books and journals, more stable than the digital
ones.

IMHO, of course,
Giorgio Guzzetta

PhD Student
Digital Arts and Humanities Institute
&
Italian Department
UCC

Books are falling apart  http://futuread.hypotheses.org/  (blog in
hypotheses.org)

Amnesia Creativa  http://amnesiacreativa.giorgioguzzetta.net/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Par un curieux renversement qui est propre à notre temps, c'est l'innocence
qui est sommée  de fournir ses justifications (Albert Camus 1951)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 886.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
>
>
>         Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 07:00:01 +0000
>         From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>         Subject: citing
>
>
> Dan O'Donnell's note leads to a question he didn't ask: what might be
> happening to the practice of citation? Though I go to great lengths to
> cite my sources, I can certainly feel the temptation to think that in
> many cases citing a source is unnecessary in the age of Google et al.
> Are people in general drawing a different line than they would have
> drawn prior to the Web between what must be cited and what is
> too easily found to bother with?
>
> Yours,
> WM
> --
> Willard McCarty (www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of Digital
> Humanities, King's College London, and Research Group in Digital
> Humanities, University of Western Sydney




--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 19:59:34 +0100
        From: Miran gmail <miranhladnik1 at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.886 citing
        In-Reply-To: <20140316071957.3A9AC6489 at digitalhumanities.org>


Web searching and on-line availability of sources arise questions
regarding some basic norms of citing.

As I have written in the previous post
(http://lists.digitalhumanities.org/pipermail/humanist/2014-March/011811.html),
citing URL is unnecessary as nobody would retype it into the command
line; it is much easier to type in three or four title words. It is
only reasonable to include URLs as hyperlinks (which fails in case of
plain text messages in the Humanist Discussion Group).

There is no great need any more to arrange the list of references
alphabetically nor to put the last name first, because we search for
references mostly by using ctrl + f.

Why then set up a list of references by authors? With the rise of
collective authorship (e. g. in Wikipedia) the role of an individual
author is losing its importance and it seems increasingly appropriate
to start citation with a title or with a key word.

There are, however, useful new data ready to be included into a
bibliographic item which have not been provided in any of current
citation styles -- that is a link to the book in a digital library or
a link to the record in a library catalogue (e. g. ISBN). As we easily
access the comprehensive information about the source by a click, we
could in principle skip some other traditional bibliographic data
among references: editor, place, publishing house, page etc. Take a
look at some more examples on
https://sl.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nova_pisarija#Knjiga (warninig: in
Slovene only) -- miran.



More information about the Humanist mailing list