Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced.
31 likes 6mo
Meta · Wiki maintenance · continued
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
16 likes 6mo
a.thorne, post #6: That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for. Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise. Go to post
What I would check first on citation sweep results is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
TL4_Halvorsen, post #32: Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that. Go to post
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on citation sweep results. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
22 likes 6mo
c.amankwah, post #31: Question for the editors: what is the standard for adding a citation to a claim that is community practice rather than published? At the moment those sentences are unmarked and read as though they were sourced. Go to post
The number people quote for citation sweep results is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
TL4_Halvorsen, post #32: Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that. Go to post
I read post #37 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Written from notes rather than memory, which is why the numbers are specific.
m.kjaer, post #15: An observation about citation sweep results that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private. Go to post
Post #40 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
The version of citation sweep results that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Confirming post #42 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on citation sweep results, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
9 likes 6mo
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
21 likes 5mo
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed citation sweep results, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
30 likes 5mo
ms_holloway, post #21: The strongest argument against my own position on citation sweep results, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet. Go to post
On post #44 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Adding a reference point for citation sweep results. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
s.adebayo, post #37: Post #33 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it. Citation sweep results was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread. Go to post
Post #46 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Citation sweep results is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
15 likes 5mo
a.adeyemi, post #17: I had written a reply contradicting post #15 and deleted it. Here is what survived. The claim about citation sweep results upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes". Go to post
Adding a data point of agreement rather than a data point.
Citation sweep results is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.
5 likes 5mo
Worth separating two things that post #47 runs together.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
28 likes 5mo
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
14 likes 5mo
The most useful thing anyone has posted about citation sweep results in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
2 likes 5mo
batchlog, post #4: Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting. Practical experience of citation sweep results, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable. Go to post
Citation sweep results has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.
Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it.
0 likes 5mo
Taking post #54 at face value and following it one step further.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
20 likes 5mo
s.grimaldi, post #11: I would be cautious about generalising from the citation sweep results example above. It is a good example. It is one example. Go to post
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
i.grimaldi, post #55: Acknowledging rather than arguing. The reasoning holds as far as I can follow it. Go to post
Two claims get bundled together under citation sweep results and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
s.adebayo, post #37: Post #33 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it. Citation sweep results was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread. Go to post
Citation sweep results would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.