Any time you make a substantive claim about some form of material phenomena, you need to cite a source or sources. The amount and weight of the sources you need to cite depend entirely upon the extent of your claim. The more controversial or outlandish the claim that you make is likely to be, the more evidence you need to cite to back up said claim.
While citing sources online, you should provide an easy way for someone else to look up the article you are referencing. Posting a book title with no page number or chapter number for the relevant fact is not a good way of having a source online. Even having a book cited by page and paragraph is not desirable, as without the book on hand, there is little one can do to verify your claims. If you have to cite something physical like a book; you should be prepared to scan or otherwise digitalize it.
Ideally, all citations will have a link to the original source, or will otherwise have some form of universal resource index that leads back to the original paper or source, such as a DOI or ISSN. As well, you should quote the most pertinent passages within your source and list specific page numbers.
Additionally, you should be hesitant when citing anything outside of peer-reviewed research, as the validity of these sources is much harder to verify. Journals like [i]Nature[/i], [i]Cell[/i] or [i]Science[/i] are all peer reviewed. This means that for an article to be accepted for publishing, it needs to undergo a rigorous round of criticism by relevant experts in the field. Unless you're an expert in the field, one should usually have no reason to bring any qualms with a peer-reviewed article's findings.
Books are just as bad as websites, as they only are edited for content and grammar; ensuring that the reasoning and methodology within these are good is crucial. Personal websites are also bad as primary sources, but are acceptable as reviews of the peer reviewed literature if run by someone with relevant expertise in the area.
This is ironic because it seems like you're copied this without citing your source.
On the chance that you've written it, you're probably doing that intellectual high-horse thing where you try to get us to respect and adore you by making us think you're smart and own a thesaurus.
(it never turns out well)
[QUOTE=Xaurer;26307096]This is ironic because it seems like you're copied this without citing your source.[/QUOTE]
Nope, just wrote it all myself in like 15 minutes, because I've noticed (personal anecdote) that people tend to throw around claims without any backing a lot around here.
You need to cite your brain.
Please do need to do this, especially in scientific topics. It's funny how often I see no source or a mis-cited or quote mined source.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26307154]Please do need to do this, especially in scientific topics.[/QUOTE]
what
[url]http://www.easybib.com/[/url]
see look i can give advice too except without a wall of text
[QUOTE=M_B;26307175][url]http://www.easybib.com/[/url]
see look i can give advice too except without a wall of text[/QUOTE]
Helps with formatting; doesn't help if your source is shitty or non-existential.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26307184]Helps with formatting; doesn't help if your source is shitty or non-existential.[/QUOTE]
Non-existent*
If you're going to use a sophisticated vernacular for the sake of sounding more formal or professional, make sure it makes sense first.
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;26307287]Non-existent*
If you're going to use a sophisticated vernacular for the sake of sounding more formal or professional, make sure it makes sense first.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonexistential[/url]
1: Not existential.
[url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existential[/url]
1: Of, or relating to existence.
2: Based on experience; empirical.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26307328][url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonexistential[/url]
1: Not existential.
[url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/existential[/url]
1: Of, or relating to existence.
2: Based on experience; empirical.[/QUOTE]
Anon. "Nonexistential - Wiktionary." Wiktionary, the Free Dictionary. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonexistential>.
Anon. "Existential - Wiktionary." Wiktionary, the Free Dictionary. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Existential>.
The primary, non-archaic use of the word existential is in reference to the philosophy of existentialism, which is light years away from what you were trying to say.
Still doesn't make sense in common usage.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26307350]Anon. "Nonexistential - Wiktionary." Wiktionary, the Free Dictionary. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonexistential>.
Anon. "Existential - Wiktionary." Wiktionary, the Free Dictionary. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Existential>.[/QUOTE]
Formal format isn't as important as just citing the source in the first place. Also you forgot the last date of edit, first date of creation and a list of contributing authors. Anon. is not the correct author to list for a Wikimedia Foundation project.
[editline]26th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;26307363]The primary, non-archaic use of the word existential is in reference to the philosophy of existentialism, which is light years away from what you were trying to say.
Still doesn't make sense in common usage.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense in formal usage, which is exactly what you were talking about.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26307364]Formal format isn't as important as just citing the source in the first place. Also you forgot the last date of edit, first date of creation and a list of contributing authors. Anon. is not the correct author to list for a Wikimedia Foundation project.
[editline]26th November 2010[/editline]
Makes sense in formal usage, which is exactly what you were talking about.[/QUOTE]
I wanna throttle you.
[QUOTE=Xaurer;26307096]This is ironic because it seems like you're copied this without citing your source.
On the chance that you've written it, you're probably doing that intellectual high-horse thing where you try to get us to respect and adore you by making us think you're smart and own a thesaurus.
(it never turns out well)[/QUOTE]
What? Owning a thesaurus makes you smart, now? Awesome.
He said "by making us think you're smart [b]and[/b] own a thesaurus." Meaning he's smart, and also has the ability to use a thesaurus. The two are mutually exclusive. I think that's how he meant it, anyway.
Although owning a thesaurus probably does make you smart. I mean, come on. Why not have one?
Oh christ this reminds me of Phoenix Ashes.
Who here remembers Phoenix Ashes?
(The thesaurus thing, I mean)
[QUOTE=Xaurer;26307096]This is ironic because it seems like you're copied this without citing your source.
On the chance that you've written it, you're probably doing that intellectual high-horse thing where you try to get us to respect and adore you by making us think you're smart and own a thesaurus.
(it never turns out well)[/QUOTE]
There aren't actually any enormous, difficult, hard to read words in there. I don't see how you would need a thesaurus to make some well-formed paragraphs.
Just cite them in APA style.
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26307184]Helps with formatting; doesn't help if your source is shitty or non-existential.[/QUOTE]
that wouldn't be a source, then, would it?
this thread seems somewhat pointless.
Irerain, F. This Is a Shitty Thread, Journal of Real Big Things. (2003;71:40–52.)
[editline]26th November 2010[/editline]
what im trying to say is that the op is dumb as shit
APA Format all up in this
[QUOTE=Kagrenak;26307104]Nope, just wrote it all myself in like 15 minutes, because I've noticed (personal anecdote) that people tend to throw around claims without any backing a lot around here.[/QUOTE]
Better start getting used to it
APA? I thought people used MLA.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;26322073]APA? I thought people used MLA.[/QUOTE]
depends on the profession. if it's anything to do with psychology, for obvious reasons, it'll be APA, most other scientifically based courses and professions will use it as well. and then everything else will use MLA.
of course in a larger part it rests on the individual professor, and then again it doesn't particularly matter, either. just about all occupations will tell you how they want it if they actually care.
Chicago Manual of Style also gets a lot of use in publishing.
Why do they refuse to make a single format it's ridiculous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
