tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366909960546184927.post6959604427403623921..comments2023-06-11T02:19:27.429-07:00Comments on Academic Cog: A stupid questionSisyphushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09880634753539329199noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366909960546184927.post-57689975448957459292009-05-27T19:59:51.253-07:002009-05-27T19:59:51.253-07:00While I agree that erring on the side of citing ca...While I agree that erring on the side of citing can be a good thing, if you are only mentioning the title of a work in passing, it is not necessary to cite - and to do so can look like unnecessary padding of the works cited. My general rule of thumb has been: If I'm referring to a text in a specific way (for example, to talk about a specific passage or even section) it goes in the works cited. Also, if I say that for a particular reading of so and so in a note x text, I'll put x text in the works cited because I've directly told people to go look at it. If, however, I'm just listing off works in an author's oeuvre (and even summarizing them briefly/broadly) no citation. I figure that falls under the "common knowledge" rule of citation.<br /><br />Example: in the book I mention that Woolf's To the Lighthouse, Mrs. Dalloway, and The Waves are widely considered her exemplary "high modernist" texts. But I never talk again about TTL or TW. Thus, no need to put them in the works cited, as I don't actually cite them or even talk about them in any detail. If, however, I'd put a content note in about, say, the Time Passes section of TTL as it related to how time works in MD, I'd put TTL in the works cited, because I would have referred to something somewhat specific and pointed readers to it.<br /><br />And I am frazzled, but fine. Thanks for asking :)Dr. Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12457967076373916629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366909960546184927.post-40811716116996215942009-05-27T19:26:18.522-07:002009-05-27T19:26:18.522-07:00I always prefer to err on the side of citing. Over...I always prefer to err on the side of citing. Overciting can be trimmed and mitigated; underciting can look sloppy.Diggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851524413793098615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7366909960546184927.post-27811821184894945402009-05-27T18:48:58.558-07:002009-05-27T18:48:58.558-07:00In vague cases like this, I follow my advisor's ru...In vague cases like this, I follow my advisor's rule: when in doubt, cite. It's easier for editors to cut a text from a works cited page than to send it back to you to dig up a citation, or find it themselves.Sapiencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09259871146375570988noreply@blogger.com