From here on out, Straight Dope columns will include references - while Cecil knows everything, in this justly skeptical age we can’t expect you to take his word for it. We’ll add references to old columns as time permits, and in addition hope to revise outdated columns. With more than 2,800 articles online, some dating back to the early 1970s, this is an enormous undertaking - source materials for the oldest columns typically are jumbled or missing. If the Teeming Millions wish to assist in this righteous work, we sure wouldn’t turn you down.
I can understand it will take good bit of time to do the old columns but why don’t the new columns contain references yet? The current one (hemaphrodites) does not contain references.
How can I help?
This week’s column on the capacitors does not contain references, despite it being made clear that Una was dispatched to do considerable leg-work. Was there no reference made to anything other than Una’s self-sacrificing efforts at measurement?
There is a time lag between the time the column is posted and the time the references are posted. This timing difference is just a function of when certain people are available to update the website - an initial posting is done to ensure that the week’s column as appears in syndication is visible every Friday, and then later on someone looks at Cecil’s notes and determines which cites to use. In some cases the person responsible for this needs to ask Cecil which references to include, because some of Cecil’s columns can have 30, 40, or even more citations to them, and we only want to show the most important ones on the website.
Why? Is the Internet running out of space?
Including all references would be better for all concerned, especially those who want to pursue the matter further. You can always separate them out into major references and minor ones.
It’s a stylistic thing (which I do agree with) and in any event a decision made at higher levels than I. Forty references posted for an 800 word column (with perhaps 700 being Cecil’s words of wisdom) would be hard to parse through without in-text citations. Anticipating your next question, I’m certain it comes down to a stylistic concern more than anything why in-text citations aren’t done; you’d need Ed to answer more on that. I will assure you that the lion’s share of sources are posted, and certainly all of the ones critical to the issue.
I also cannot say that a subset of references will always be the case - after all, including any references at all just started a couple of months ago after 35 years of columns. In the future the decision may be made to have full in-text cited columns - again, that’s something that’s up to Ed, Cecil, and the Chicago Reader/Creative Loafing.
No, there were lots of references, all of which are in the files; I just haven’t had a chance to format them for posting. If somebody wants to help - you serious, Washoe? - I’m happy to give it a shot. I warn you, it’s dull, time-consuming work. But it’s something we need to do.
Right now I have a lot of problems (my mom just had a stroke and the chaos just keeps piling up), but as soon as I get my fecal matter consolidated I might be able to spare an hour a day or so. Give me from a few days to maybe two weeks get things straightened out and I’ll get back to you.
The March 20 column did not have references.
The March 27 column did not have references.
The April 3 column did not have references.
Is this a definition of “from here on out” that is special to Chicago? It’s not the one used elsewhere.
Including references in the text can be as informal as saying, “According to Lydene Richardson in his treatise “Lacogquinas,” the rituals of both tribes included rented hobbits and fog machines.”
Argh. References were something I was doing in my spare time and lately I haven’t had any. As soon as I get some time to focus on this I’m going to try to get a process in place to make references happen.
References are a great way to fight ignorance, provided they do not frighten the ignorant off.