- Post starter
- Admin
- #13
anthony
Founder
Ok... all taken onboard when when coming up with a proposed format in the instruction thread.
I believe a citation is inline, and a reference is at the end... if my understanding is correct.
Whilst I thought about using citations vs. references, or even in combination as official doctrine uses, I also then came back to the traumatic brain... I was reading the type of book I absolutely hate, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, A Comprehensive Text, by Bremner and Saigh... pretty much the gods of anything PTSD within the mental health industry, the book is really a book of studies, official results, genetics, neurological aspects, etc... reading it annoys the piss out of me, as I read: (highlighted text vs. citations in one part of a sentence)
...PTSD used as a self-report measure in epidemiological studies, including studies of hurricanes (Lonigan et al., 1994; Shannon et al., 1994; Shaw, Applegate, Tanner, & Perex, 1995); earthquake (Bradburn, 1991; Goenjian et al., 1995), and war zone exposure (Nader et al., 1993).
You can see... it becomes really annoying to read or understand the sentence with citations (disruptions) contained within against the majority of people with a traumatic brain... well, just readers in general can't stand official crap like this.
Everytime I read official journals, such material, it turns me further and further away from the idea of including citations within the text... at most, I am thinking of something simple like [1] which identifies the first reference, [2], etc, like wikipedia uses, or just leaving at... here is the text, and the cumulative information you are reading here comes from experience, theory, and the references listed at the bottom.
I am thinking about the issue of attachments at present... especially web pages, as they come and go like no tomorrow. You link to them now, someone clicks on them, then their gone a month / year later. Using a mac is easy, as you can go to any webpage, and save it as a PDF via print... but that function is not built into Windows... then attach the PDF obviously to the reference, instead of linking to the site itself. I believe it is the best way vs. linking... but I have to work on that yet.
This all may take me until next weekend to really have a solid starting point... as more and more arises with specific aspect of the page creation... which is expected, and good... so we get it right then start building pages.
I have a near complete demo sitting ready as an example... but still without references and some other aspects that I want to tidy up first... ie. the headings... not real happy with them at present. The content menu, maybe apply a little pizzazz to it... etc.
Keep the points coming... post threads, whatever it takes... throw it all at me now, at the group, so we get things cemented before be start building pages... and obviously once I finish a foundation instruction, then everyone attacks it and we nut it out.
I believe a citation is inline, and a reference is at the end... if my understanding is correct.
Whilst I thought about using citations vs. references, or even in combination as official doctrine uses, I also then came back to the traumatic brain... I was reading the type of book I absolutely hate, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, A Comprehensive Text, by Bremner and Saigh... pretty much the gods of anything PTSD within the mental health industry, the book is really a book of studies, official results, genetics, neurological aspects, etc... reading it annoys the piss out of me, as I read: (highlighted text vs. citations in one part of a sentence)
...PTSD used as a self-report measure in epidemiological studies, including studies of hurricanes (Lonigan et al., 1994; Shannon et al., 1994; Shaw, Applegate, Tanner, & Perex, 1995); earthquake (Bradburn, 1991; Goenjian et al., 1995), and war zone exposure (Nader et al., 1993).
You can see... it becomes really annoying to read or understand the sentence with citations (disruptions) contained within against the majority of people with a traumatic brain... well, just readers in general can't stand official crap like this.
Everytime I read official journals, such material, it turns me further and further away from the idea of including citations within the text... at most, I am thinking of something simple like [1] which identifies the first reference, [2], etc, like wikipedia uses, or just leaving at... here is the text, and the cumulative information you are reading here comes from experience, theory, and the references listed at the bottom.
I am thinking about the issue of attachments at present... especially web pages, as they come and go like no tomorrow. You link to them now, someone clicks on them, then their gone a month / year later. Using a mac is easy, as you can go to any webpage, and save it as a PDF via print... but that function is not built into Windows... then attach the PDF obviously to the reference, instead of linking to the site itself. I believe it is the best way vs. linking... but I have to work on that yet.
This all may take me until next weekend to really have a solid starting point... as more and more arises with specific aspect of the page creation... which is expected, and good... so we get it right then start building pages.
I have a near complete demo sitting ready as an example... but still without references and some other aspects that I want to tidy up first... ie. the headings... not real happy with them at present. The content menu, maybe apply a little pizzazz to it... etc.
Keep the points coming... post threads, whatever it takes... throw it all at me now, at the group, so we get things cemented before be start building pages... and obviously once I finish a foundation instruction, then everyone attacks it and we nut it out.
