Cite for Sore Eyes
Monday, January 18th, 2010 01:22 amI am currently revising my book on how to write a term paper so as to bring the chapter on citation up to date with 6th edition APA and 7th edition MLA (for the benefit of non-academics: this translates as PITA). Citation formats are to academics what the technical specifications of the Enterprise are to Trekkies, i.e., vitally important to members of your group, and totally pointless to everyone else. People actually have heated arguments about whether MLA (Modern Languages Association) is better than CMS (Chicago Manual of Style), which is silly since Chicago has loads of class and MLA is the polyester leisure suit of academic style because normal people don't give a dingo's kidney about this kind of thing. After wading through the details of APA formatting for miscellaneous non-print sources, I'm starting to move from being an academic to being a normal person: I want to cross out "For an episode of a television series, use the following format" and write "For Christ's sake, they can look it up on Wikipedia like everyone else!"
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 12:28 am (UTC)imdb is a better resource for that.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 08:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 02:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 08:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 07:14 am (UTC)Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 05:53 pm (UTC)You create something like a teenie perfect data base where you tuck all the salient details, then write a set of instructions on how to format them. Diff specification? Change the instructions and *Hey! Presto!* the document is reformatted.
Kinda like switching the CSS style-sheet for a wep-page ... contents remains the same, presentation changes. If that's at all meaningful.
If you do that sorta thing, it would be worth looking into. (And no, I don't know /a thing/ about Word! I use OpenOffice.)
Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 06:56 pm (UTC)I really wish they would all get together among themselves and decide that, right, this will be the standard format from now on. I don't particularly care what it is, just so long as it's consistent.
Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 08:30 pm (UTC)Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 11:25 pm (UTC)... and next you'll be fixing things so we don't have a repeat of Katrina everytime Mother Nature drops a pot.
But seriously folks: that sort of refinement is truly the sort of thing that only OpenSource projects can be looked to for. (Yes, ugly formulation. "If I had more time I would write more concisely.") That sort of refinement appeals to so few ... what corporation is that well motivated? GMail for example ... a rather primitive interface for an impressive back-end.
Did I hear someone mutter something about "lowest common denominator"?
BTW: if you know someone with a full copy of WP5.1 for DOS, c/w manuals ... or Borland's PAL for Paradox ... those both were /glorious/ macro writing languages.
Truly. I had set up menu-driven macros that allowed engineers to create MIL-SPEC compliant documents from scratch. Plop-plop/fizz-fizz.
As lj-user="miss_next"* points out, quite rightly, there are a number of different standards. But it's a finite number. And macros are ace at handling "case" logic.
* (snicker) I can't remember syntax for LJ User!
Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 08:32 pm (UTC)Re: Macros
Date: 2010-01-18 11:28 pm (UTC)Confronted by the blank screen of WP for DOS, User knew s/he had to dig in and figure it out.
Confronted by Byzantine maze of oh-so simple menu items ... the mind boggles. End result? User is left in the grips of severe self-doubt. (I called for a class action suit against M$ when Win95 came out ... psychological abuse. Not kidding!)
But if you use Wikipedia ...
Date: 2010-01-18 05:44 pm (UTC);-^
/me does MIL-SPEC tech_docs!