Over at OoL now, what your humble blogger considers one of his more vital pieces in terms of this blog. That is, I debunk myself and issue a warning to the sphere in the light of the current Leveson pressure. It begins …
This is a cautionary tale, largely against myself – sometimes I have to do my own debunking.
Keypoint 1: Are hyperlinks enough?
A few years back, a retired Scottish scientist [a real one] took me to task for using hyperlinks – he expected I’d know, as an academic, that it was vital, when quoting, to list author, title, publication, date and page as a minimum and preferably the publisher as well.
I did know that and had spent most of my academic career drumming that into students – that it was fine to quote someone for support, indeed they needed to refer to someone to give weight to their arguments but that it had to appear via numbering as both a footnote and the source as part of a bibliography at the end.
If you look at how Wiki does it, you’ll note the sources listed below.
I argued that on a blog, there is neither the time nor the space for all that – to hyperlink to the source, provided the source gave author, title, publication, date and page as a minimum and preferably the publisher as well, would suffice.
Keypoint 2: Research is a 90% to 10% thing
It goes on and on at OoL and will come back here eventually as my official statement about how this blog operates and the rules governing its material. I’ll not leave comments or trackbacks on here as it would double up. If you’re a regular reader here, it might be worth your while wading through that post.