我们应该允许请求引用吗?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学元堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台 最近30从earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com 2023 - 07 - 09 - t23:30:20z https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/feeds/question/1441 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1441 8 我们应该允许请求引用吗? 半日西蒙 https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/users/39 2015 - 04 - 24 - t10:17:12z 2015 - 04 - 28 - t11:56:45z < p >提示看到< a href = " //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/4742/understanding-gridding-schemes-in-models " >参考移动和嵌套网格模型中< / >。发问者在信息”等概念移动网格和嵌套网格模型”,可能会关闭,如果问诸如太过宽泛。< / p > < p >然而,他们实际上要求的是一个引用,这样他们就可以去读。< / p > < p >这是一个有效的问题从一个方面讲,它可能帮助他人。但是它可以吸引类似链接只回答[1],也不觉得这是“精神”的课件。< / p >

[1] Note: I don't think that the usual argument against allowing link-only answers (which is that the links may change or disappear) really applies to requesting a reference to academic literature, which should be constant and findable in the future.

https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/-/1443 # 1443 9 答案由user2821我们应该允许请求引用吗? user2821 https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2536 2015 - 04 - 24 - t16:40:03z 2015 - 04 - 24 - t16:40:03z < p >我想这个问题可以被编辑,这样一个答案可以给主题加上引用的概述。< / p > https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/-/1446 # 1446 3 答案由marsisalie我们应该允许请求引用吗? marsisalie https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1411 2015 - 04 - 24 - t17:16:05z 2015 - 04 - 24 - t17:16:05z < p >我认为就像这里提到的问题太广泛,潜力(广泛)答案将很可能不会太OP和为他人有关。< / p > < p >我想知道“就事论事”的方法是比一个强大的“我们允许”和“我们不允许”的方法。应该更容易实施,但我个人更喜欢开放和限制较少的方式做事——当然这是一个可能性。< / p > < p >否则,例如我猜OP是意思一下气候模型。但当一个人需要解密,知道这是什么问题,然后提供参考。将问题的清晰性和精度的问题,而不是问题本身? < / p > https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/-/1447 # 1447 6 答案由milancurcic我们应该允许请求引用吗? milancurcic https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/users/192 2015 - 04 - 25 - t19:10:01z 2015 - 04 - 25 - t19:10:01z < p >是的,我认为这将是一个非常有益的特性这个网站,特别是对于那些达到搜索引擎的问题和答案。西蒙指出,发问者不寻求一个特定问题的答案对一种现象或一个过程,但方向进一步阅读。我认为这将适合非常具体的过程和现象,描述了一些科学的文章。显然,在维基百科上描述的一般概念,引用请求不会是非常有用的。我们可以按照< a href = " https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/reference-request " > math.SE引用请求< / >模型。我们采取具有地域特点,随着越来越多的工作专家加入网站,引用请求特性将变得越来越有用。< / p >

For example, say I just started writing a paper about a process that is remotely related to Langmuir circulations in the upper ocean. I may have some basic knowledge about them, but I want to read further and I want to read from the beginning. Google and Wikipedia will only get me so far, and crawling down the reference-chain is time consuming and tedious, especially once you reach the papers that are several decades old. Having a place to request a list of most relevant peer-reviewed articles on the subject would be of great use. Of course, this assumes that there would be a user on the website that already has more thorough knowledge on the process. Thus I can see this feature working well only later down the road when the user base gets more saturated with experts.

https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1441/-/1449 # 1449 3 答案由mattdm我们应该允许请求引用吗? mattdm https://earthscience.meta.stackexchange.com/users/1214 2015 - 04 - 28 - t11:56:45z 2015 - 04 - 28 - t11:56:45z < p >说有经验在其他堆栈交换网站,要求引用往往是像其他软件建议或购物的江南电子竞技平台建议——答案改变到答案成为维护一件苦差事。他们倾向于吸引一些俏皮话,其中一些将很快死链接。< / p >

If you have a few people really committed to maintaining the answers to such questions regularly, it could work. But it's kind of a thankless chore with little obvious return.

Maybe it's okay in some cases where the reference is known to be authoritative and stable. But in those cases — is Stack Exchange really even needed?

Baidu
map