Referencing / References - Feedback Required

[anthony]

I wanted to ask the groups opinion on providing references for the material found in pages. I was reading through the APA referencing guide: Subscription and whilst I understand that is very official and all, I'm not sure if that is what we really want to be employing upon these pages or not, to the level of what this wiki is trying to achieve. I was reviewing examples, and it gets pretty finicky, colons, commas, fullstops, etc.

Here is my point. These are not scholarly articles, they are not being submitted to a journal, they are not the official wikipedia or encyclopedia content, but I believe all work should provide substance, proof, and that means references / citations.

I may simply need some help, a smack around the ear, not sure... if so, please give. If not... then maybe an agreed upon, simplified version, that is legal against copyright, yet we don't have to spend an hour just making sure a reference list is exact to the APA standard.

I need feedback from the group on this please. It was raised by Intothelight in another thread here, but now I am starting to look at referencing to be incorporated into the template design, I am beginning to wonder whether the complexity of the APA format is required vs. a simplified version.

For example, the APA format for a reference to pages 323 - 325, chapter 6 (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy),
Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD: Emotional Processing of Traumatic Experiences (Therapist Guide) is:

Foa, E., Hembree, E., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2007). Cognitive behavioral therapy. In Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD: Emotional Processing of Traumatic Experiences (Therapist Guide) (pp. 323-325). USA. Oxford University Press.

Even that is probably still wrong... and that just took me around 10 minutes to work out and write, one reference.

I am thinking something a little simplier, if others agree, otherwise the formal version I guess. My thinking is along the lines:

Foa, Hembree, Rothbaum, 2007, Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD: Emotional Processing of Traumatic Experiences (Therapist Guide), p 323-325.

who wrote it / edited it / owns it, published date, title, page/s. Nice and simple, nothing rocket science about it. Put a comma between each aspect to isolate each area, and looks good. Took me seconds to write vs. minutes to work out the specifics.

 

[Nicolette]

Hmmm... I'm up for giving you a smack around the ear

especially when you want feedback but lock the thread?!

 

[anthony]

I have opened this now... sorry, I closed it off as I hadn't finished writing it and my son turned up to visit.

 

[amethist]

The last simpler version looks better, less fussy but still has the basic information required.

Looking at the back of a book I use a lot for Aromatherapy, it has just the basics. An example below of how she does it.

Maybey, R. The Complete New Herbal, Elm Tree Books, 1988.

Adding the specific page or chapter at the end for any article from that book or even link to the Web page, on here so it can be checked for those who want to.

 

[anthony]

Yep... simplier is better. What I don't want this to become is a formal type doctrine that contains all the big words physicians love to use, instead to transcribe the facts into real life readable content for the traumatic brain, carer, family member and associated persons surrounding PTSD.

To me, that includes the reference, being that it is easily readable for the layperson, as the entire wiki page is.

 

[Srain]

Good call.

 

[anthony]

Does it even need the authors or publishers name, if you are naming the book itself, and year (so people know which one)?

 

[Nicolette]

You definitely have to give the author credit......

 

[intothelight]

APA can be overwhelming at first, but in all honesty, I have never used more than five variations. The other advantage is that many articles have a tab that contain a pre-formated APA citation, so it is basically a cut and past to the reference list.

I am sure there are easier ways to do the references, but you do have to include the authors name first regardless of the reference format.

I don't have a real preference either way.

 

[anni]

Most people who might be turning to this as a real source of comfort through information would probably have that traumatic brain thing. I agree simpler is going to be better across the board.

I know the APA format stops this brain cold. I'd do it, if asked of course but it'd take me 20 minutes at least.

 

[Srain]

The simpler the better. I tend to have a very difficult time reading with comprehension. The 1, 2, 3 step method with an example might be the most productive style, always with the author mentioned, in my opinion for further investigation of material.

 

[rjtransient]

I have a question. Will the references within the article follow Wikipedia's format, as in, clickable superscript notation that takes the reader to a References list? As ITL mentioned, lots of downloadable articles already include the APA citation. I agree that simpler = clearer and more readable.

I don't see an issue with using the simpler format for books, but as for research papers. . . I'm not sure.

I know that science blogs get around this by citing the name and authors of a study, explaining the findings in everyday language, and including a hypertext link to the study in pdf format if the reader wants to view the source. Here's an example from Wired's Frontal Cortex blog: introduction (3-4 sentences), followed by "These are the fascinating questions asked in a new [DLMURL="http://www.psych.illinois.edu/%7Edalbarra/pubs/Wll%20I%20I%20will.pdf"]paper[/DLMURL] led by Ibrahim Senay and Dolores Albarracin, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and published in [DLMURL="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/05/0956797610364751.abstract"]Psychological Science[/DLMURL]."

Might be possible in some cases? I'm too tired to think clearly tonight, but I thought I'd throw that out there.