Timeline for How often do people read the work that they cite?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2019 at 2:15 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 12, 2019 at 12:38 | |||||
| Feb 9, 2014 at 17:36 | vote | accept | Vidit Nanda | ||
| Sep 18, 2012 at 0:39 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | I'm late to this question, so it might be moot, but the question seems pretty subjective and slightly argumentative (or at least there is a normative quality to asking what policy "should" be). I don't see how to rescue the question, because it seems like a matter of personal ethics. I'm sorry, Vel, but I think I have to vote to close. | |
| Jun 19, 2012 at 15:21 | answer | added | Yul Otani | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jun 19, 2012 at 14:27 | history | edited | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
accepted gil's neutralizing edits
|
| Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 | comment | added | Alexander Chervov | @Joel "best practices" ? may be different people will have different opinions... | |
| Jun 19, 2012 at 10:03 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Yemon, you are right, and I wish I could soften my second comment now. Gil's edit definitely improves the question tremendously, but still what I would have liked to see is a question asking what are the best practices in regard to citation, rather than a focus on how likely it is that an author has read carefully the papers he or she cites. | |
| Jun 19, 2012 at 9:51 | comment | added | Yemon Choi | I think JDH's list is rather more extreme than the original post, and hence something of a rhetorical shift. (No personal offence intended.) But then as a stuck-in-the-mud who sees too many papers in his own neck of the woods that mimic information from another paper without signs of digestion, or rely overly on secondary sources for things which could just as well go unmentioned... I am rather biased, I admit. | |
| Jun 19, 2012 at 9:26 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
making the question less rude; added 1 characters in body; added 2 characters in body
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 15:40 | comment | added | Timothy Chow | Related question: mathoverflow.net/questions/23758/… | |
| Jun 7, 2012 at 13:16 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Vel, I don't find it neutral. Your formulation of the question suggests that there is something very wrong with current mathematical practice; that the only reason people make citations is when using previously proved theorems in their proofs; that people should definitely read all of every paper they cite; that it is shameful when they don't; and that learning information from another paper constitutes "stealing". I happen to think that each of these presumptions is incorrect, and so I objected to the question. Nevertheless, I can imagine a truly neutral question on best citation practices. | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 21:05 | comment | added | roy smith | I probably have not always done this, but my more scholarly friends often seem to. I am now reading a work by my friend George Kempf where he flatly states that to understand various points about abelian integrals one should reqd abel, jacobi, and riemann. it is obvious that he had himself done so. I have indeed found that by reading riemann i did indeed understand some things far better than I had ever done from reading even the most eminent more recent authorities. now that I am retired I hope to educate myself better. I am older, but I have more leisure. | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 20:30 | answer | added | timur | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 6, 2012 at 20:24 | history | edited | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 6, 2012 at 9:15 | answer | added | alvarezpaiva | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 10:02 | comment | added | JRN | The comments to this question mathoverflow.net/questions/43147/… may be of help. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 8:36 | answer | added | Alexander Chervov | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 7:58 | answer | added | Denis Serre | timeline score: 27 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 5:29 | answer | added | Gordon Royle | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 4:30 | answer | added | user23860 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 3:00 | answer | added | fedja | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 0:26 | answer | added | Nik Weaver | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 0:17 | answer | added | tweetie-bird | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 4, 2012 at 23:19 | history | edited | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 339 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2012 at 23:12 | history | edited | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Split out the nerve theorem question; deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2012 at 22:45 | comment | added | MTS | This seems more appropriate to be two questions... | |
| Jun 4, 2012 at 22:23 | history | asked | Vidit Nanda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |