= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Morendil comments on PSA: Please list your references, don't just link them - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
Thanks for the heads-up!
Yes to your overall point: link rot is a nasty problem; one that will increasingly mess with things like scientific citation.
Now for the nitpicks. G89 wasn't even the "original" study, just the earliest source I could find that discussed those "results".
What I wanted was to show the quote in question - to make it available to the reader of my post so they could check that I had my facts right. For that purpose the link is what I really needed, not "merely" a citation; and it sucks that the link went dead, but that wasn't under my control.
I have updated the post with another link (the last extant copy of this content; we can hope the link remains longer than the previous one, but I'm under no illusion that it will). I have also added the title of the original article and the publication.
BTW, I don't know what "PSA" means?
Point taken on "original", and thanks for updating the article! Gwern has also found a link on the HP homepage.
I'm not saying you shouldn't have given the link -- I'm saying that if you had also given the citation, then even after the link broke, it would have been slightly more inconvenient but not difficult for me to look it up! That's the main point of also giving the citation: to make the source available to the reader of your post even if the link rots.
Public Service Announcement
It is kind of superfluous in the title, I wish it was removed. Besides being Americentric it actually made me want to read a thoughtful suggestion less.
Ah. Thanks!