henz world 🌎

Why and How I Reference

Who Cares?

I have a bad non-fiction habit. My favorite part after a good chapter is perusing the references. It's a launching pad for places to go next. When they're not there, I throw a fit. As much as ISBN-level material expects them, most content on the internet ignores them. This is a mistake.

References guard against plagiarism. When something has one source, it's obvious. Even if they stole from multiple places, plagiarists are hesitant to give pointers directly at their spoils. Hiding often can't save them anyway. hbomberguy's Plagiarism And You(Tube)¹ rightly sunk multiple careers by exposing hack YouTubers. Simply putting video transcripts into a search engine provided a host of evidence. Expecting sources makes clear the creator is making an effort at original work.

References spread goodwill. People like getting mentioned. They deserve it for their hard work. If I come up with an idea and later find someone else has done something similar, I reference them. I find it exciting instead of demoralizing.

References help the reader understand. Contexts can get completely lost. Long paraphrasing helps nobody. It's better to be able to see exactly what's mentioned instead of playing telephone.

References give breadcrumbs. Breadcrumbs are tasty.

What Do I Do?

An excuse for shirking references is the lack of formal standards for certain mediums. YouTube has no form to fill out when a video is uploaded. YouTubers can put them in the description or in the video as text captions. Blogs can use in-text hyperlinks or a more traditional style like MLA. Academic styles have been adapted to cite YouTube videos and tweets. With so many options, the challenge is deciding how to reference without the exacting requirements and enforcement of an institution.

Because a blog post's construction is similar to an academic paper, it would make sense to choose something like MLA or APA. Still, the ability to set any block of text to a hyperlink is powerful. While sectioning off references is valuable in printed material, it can be a bad user experience on a device. Readers will have to scroll back and forth to reach the link, instead of clicking what is right in front of them.

I'm opting for a combination of both. If I expect the reader to come back, it's a direct link. If I expect the reader will take time and leave the context, it's listed in the references. While the rule is fuzzy, I'm not finding it hard to discern. A short video of No Face gorging is a direct link. hbomberguy's epic 4-hour video can be put in the references and watched later if the reader desires. (They should desire.)

For listing references, my approach is to mostly follow the Chicago Manual of Style because it's the most succinct. Using an academic style instead of only a link is stuffy, but the extra info helps the reader filter through the list.

In the future, I hope more people come to love references the way I do. It's an acknowledgement of the networked world we inhabit and makes exploring together easier.

References