Do you value good referencing in NSG?

[NSG Seer]

At present it appears there are no standardised criteria by which stated claims may be referenced on NSG. It is my heartfelt belief that in the interests of maintaining a high level of accurate and evidence based debate we should strive to improve this by coming to a consensus as to how this could be addressed in future. Is there a particular referencing style you prefer (i'm a fan of Vancouver) and how do we go about systematically critically appraising the sources supplied?

Your views are important to me.

[Ashmoria]

Vancouver?

[NSG Seer]

Vancouver?

It's a style used heavily within the physical sciences. My own field.

[Calimera II]

I value good referencing, of course. But I don't think it's necessary to adopt a particular referencing style .

[NSG Seer]

I value good referencing, of course. But I don't think it's necessary to adopt a particular referencing style .

This will make it rather difficult for those appraising the reference however. I'm always a fan of learning new styles but I fear it may be unworkable without a standard to allow ease of use.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't care about any particular referencing style, as long as it is referencing the claim at hand. Except when it is a discussion where everyone is assumed to be at the same level, then I don't find it particularly necessary and only should be provided upon request.

However, for academic references I prefer Chicago.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, I don't value it. This is a casual debate site, not a school project. This isn't some moot court exercise and we aren't submitting papers for review.

Also,

A confident debater can draw from his own expertise, valid subjective experience, theories, and observations of the world.

He doesn't rely on authority. All authorities have their own agenda.

[Czechanada]

However, for academic references I prefer Chicago.

A man after my own heart!

[NSG Seer]

No, I don't value it. This is a casual debate site, not a school project. This isn't some moot court exercise and we aren't submitting papers for review.

Also,

A confident debater can draw from his own expertise, valid subjective experience, theories, and observations of the world.

He doesn't rely on authority. All authorities have their own agenda.

I don't suggest relying on authority. The critical appraisal portion of my suggestion applies to that.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, I don't value it. This is a casual debate site, not a school project. This isn't some moot court exercise and we aren't submitting papers for review.

Also,

A confident debater can draw from his own expertise, valid subjective experience, theories, and observations of the world.

He doesn't rely on authority. All authorities have their own agenda.

I don't suggest relying on authority. The critical appraisal portion of my suggestion applies to that.

okay

[Risottia]

At present it appears there are no standardised criteria by which stated claims may be referenced on NSG. It is my heartfelt belief that in the interests of maintaining a high level of accurate and evidence based debate we should strive to improve this by coming to a consensus as to how this could be addressed in future.

A link to a decently reliable website - such as an article on major newspapers, or a PDF from an institutional website (let's say the website of the EU commission for statements about the EU). Even referencing a wiki article featuring a substantial bibliography would be enough.

how where do we go about systematically critically appraising the sources supplied?

I suggest going to Vancouver.

Eh?

[Vassenor]

I have to use Harvard for my degree so it's kind of the only referencing system I know.

[The Grim Reaper]

Isn't basic inline enough?

Everyone here uses online material or anecdotal material almost exclusively - any 'authorities' cited tend to be paraphrased at best.

If anything, IMO, the problem with referencing in NSG is, from the American perspective, Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on media biases - neither tend to be exposed to detailed or good media on the other side, as mainstream media tends to be shit.

So no-one knows what sources their opponent will consider reputable.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Harvard referencing is best referencing. But NSG threads ain't an academic paper and it's a bit pretentious to pretend it is.

[Ainin]

I use MLA, but I don't really see the need for referencing in NSG because it's too casual to require them.

[Laerod]

Vancouver?

It's a style used heavily within the physical sciences. My own field.

Too formal. I think the only time I've done serious academically acceptable referencing is when I disputed something Arch claimed and we ended up agreeing to disagree. Generally linking to a reputable source is sufficient. Though even that appears to be asking too much of some people.