Timeline for "Retrofitting" sources
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 8 at 16:48 | history | edited | Anyon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Other -> answer
|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 10:54 | comment | added | tomasz | On the other hand, I have a general suspicion that many methods are constantly being reinvented in mathematics, in various fields. To expect people to cite some vastly unrelated work in those cases is too much, in my opinion. That said, pointing out similarities in methods between vastly different fields is a great idea, with the caveat of not forcing the reader to go down too deep a rabbit hole to understand your paper. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 10:54 | comment | added | tomasz | I mostly agree. Still (talking about mathematics), I think it is beneficial for (relatively) easily proved facts to be reproved, rather than forcing the reader to refer to some external work. Still, if the fact is nontrivial and not common knowledge (and there is a definitive source for it, or if the fact is folklore in a certain circle), then I guess one ought to at least acknowledge the source (or the fact that it is folklore). | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 8:50 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | Furthermore, "Declaring it trivial and unworthy of citation is a very risky move, which you should make only (...)" sounds reasonable at first, but I would wager that in an "average" properly done paper, this "risky move" is still exactly what happens for 90% of the content. The necessity to consciously skip relatively less important citations even though you know them to save space is just one contributing factor. Touching upon use cases from other fields and writing for audiences with a vast range of different backgrounds contributes its share, too. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 8:42 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | I mostly like this answer. I am only a bit wary of the last paragraph, starting with the claim "This citation is evidently not common knowledge, since you didn't know about it." I think an issue with this is that some non-trivial knowledge appears to be so common that no-one is aware there is actually one definitive source for it, rather than the knowledge being a best practice of some kind that has gradually formed over many years. | |
| Sep 17, 2015 at 5:09 | history | answered | Anonymous Mathematician | CC BY-SA 3.0 |