Gerry Canavan: attn scholarly organizations, this is now considered best practice

attn scholarly organizations, this is now considered best practice

Are snarky footnotes also acceptable?

(Source: “Digit Reversal Without Apology” by Lara Pudwell) faculty.valpo.edu/lpudwell/pap...

arxiv.org

*better known for other work 10/10 Perfect no notes

I was going to post this if no one else had!

I've definitely seen a snarky acknowledgement of the Trump administration for refusing the PhD student a visa for 2 years so they were stuck in one place and did some research they hadn't planned to ...

This is only acceptable if the reference date predates the ooof-date in parens. (i.e. "Snoswick 1997 (Ooooof 2010)")

oh, YES

Spengler (listen, I know; 1918)

In

There's some of this in the law! digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-arti...

Citation, Slavery, and the Law as Choice: Thoughts on Bluebook Rule 10.7.1(d)digitalcommons.law.uw.edu Today, more than 150 years after the end of the Civil War, lawyers and judges continue to rely on antebellum decisions that tacitly or expressly approve of slavery. This reliance often occurs without ...

There's an AMAZING amount of snarky footnoting in the law, though I'm biased because I'm a non-lawyer who mostly sees it when some social-media law-talker posts a "wow, this decision was snarky" or "wow, the judge pounded them even before you get to the footnotes" case.

I’d be delighted if there were a standard way to tag references, say: + credible , maybe relied on = neutral, or just mentioned in passing - not credible or outright wrong (I often skim references looking for known awful ones, but that can be misleading if the paper is critiquing them)

Consensus statements and systematic literature reviews usually have a form of this!

This would work great with another system where each sentence is tagged in some way with whether: 1. it is a direct quote of the source 2. it is a paraphrase of the source 3. it is a conclusion reached using the source as evidence 4. it is a conclusion reached from non-source sentences.

Is the person in general an "oof" or the cited work the "oof"?

Different for each I think; if the person, the judgement before the year - if the citation, the judgement after the year

I concur

Their body of work, or oofvre

Assume 'yikes' is a higher level of problematic than 'oof', but where does 'big oof' fit into this scale?

I'd say oof, big oof, yikes, TFG. That last one reserved for the truly awful.

brilliant! maybe these can be added to the existing cito ontology sparontologies.github.io/cito/current... maybe somewhere between 'derides' and 'parodies' 🙂

CiTO, the Citation Typing OntologyCiTO, the Citation Typing Ontologysparontologies.github.io

Lysenko [sic] (1937)

yes love this

please include the personal pronouns

"uff da" is conveniently gender-neutral, even if you know whose beer was being held.

I want to like this 1000 times.

literally need to do this in current project!

#Alt4This screenshot (from Tumblr?) nathanielthecurious: i think you should be allowed to cite scholars who are bad people but only if you put the word (oof) or (yikes) after their name like Parker (yikes, 1989) or Obbink (big oof, 2007) kaceycat: Freud (derogatory, 1923)

Which Parker is this? Does anyone know?

Or the Dothraki referencing system:

Post