On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I think this thread is about *academic* citations. yes, I assumed that as well, what in any of my posts made you think otherwise? > There's a metric ton of information on the web about citing software, > there are existing standards, and I really think you are > over-complicating this. See, for example: > > https://www.software.ac.uk/how-cite-software > > http://www.citethisforme.com/cite/software > > https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/#q12 The fact that those posts exist demonstrates that this is anything but a solved problem. Its not our job to tell academics how to cite, they already have a > number of standardized templates that they use, but it is our job to > tell them what information to fill into the template. > yes, of course -- I don't know why this thread got sidetracked into citation formats, that has nothing to do with it. Or as the op said, that's "the easy part" > Lets say one were to write an article about how different computer > > languages express functional programming concepts -- you may want to cite > > Python, but you are not trying to identify a specific version for > > reproducible results. > > I don't think we need to lose any sleep over how random bloggers and > Redditors informally cite Python. Why in the world would you think "article" meant random bloggers? In BiBTex, for instance, a paper in a peer reviewed journal is called an "article", as apposed to a book, or chapter, or inproceedings, or techreport, or.... As this whole thread is about academic citations, I assumed that... I think the focus here is on academic > citations, which have rather precise and standard requirements. not for software, yet. > No need > to expand the scope of this problem to arbitrary mentions of Python. > I was not expanding it -- I was hoping to contract it -- or at least better define it. > Of course it is possible that I've completely misunderstood Jackie's > request. If so, hopefully she will speak up soon. I think we're all on the same page about that, actually. My point, to be more pedantic about it, is that an academic paper might be *about* Python in some way, or it might describe work that *used* Python as a tool to accomplish some other understanding. These *may* require a different citation. And a citation that satisfies academic criteria for using Python may not be enough to assure reproducible results. > And see Wes Turner's note -- it is highly unlikely that a single citation > > to a standard document or something will be enough for reproducibility > > anyway. > > The academic community seems to think that it is. We don't have to tell > them that they're wrong. The Academic community has a really bad track record with reproducible results for computationally based research -- it is not a solved problem. And it's not a "they" -- many of us on this list are part of the academic community. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com