Trimming citations for "publishing"

Dear Editor;

When I use layered citations, my first layer documents the physical item and my second layer documents the digital item. As I'm now usually able to generate compliant layered EE citations using my suite of custom templates, I see that I could easily incorporate a switch to suppress the digital layer during "publishing".

While I do not currently intend to "publish" in the commercial sense, I may provide copies to others. Those readers may wish to have only the minimum information on what was used as the basis of my research. They may actually find lengthy citations to be overwhelming.

If I were publishing  commercially, an editor would no doubt severely trim the full citation to reduce costs. Retaining only the physical layer would seem to be one obvious starting point for generating a publishable citation through the editing process.

Can one legitimately remove the digital layer for "publication" purposes, while retaining the full citation in ones personal material?

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 09/15/2022 - 19:16

History-Hunter, the only workable answer to your question is "It depends." If we consistently put the "physical item" in the first layer, relegating the digital delivery to the second layer, then we will have many situations in which our first layer is not a complete citation because (a) the website does not provide all the needed information and (b) we did not use the original so that we can identify the remaining details from our actual use of the original.  If  you construct a "switch" that lets you automatically delete the second layer (and the third, when it is necessary to cite our source's souuce?), then you would be left with any number of citations that were not complete.

EE is solidly built on one foundation: We cite what we use.  That always keeps us on the safest ground.

Submitted bycryptorefon Thu, 09/15/2022 - 22:43

If you have huge URLs you could go the TinyURL route to make them much smaller. I've debated many times if that effort is worth it. I still am up in the air if I will do it in the future.
https://evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/2074
evidenceexplained.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-40
29812
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IB3XJPU4AYR3EURRUZTJ77APMIRQZ3SL
<urn:uuid:92e73ce3-5fa1-4867-96fb-bee40d51b746>
2022-09-25T14:33:58Z
192.241.129.247
text/html
sha1:CUOIPWVTDADTQPQ5NXULNMI3CEURY2S3
<urn:uuid:947952ba-469d-485c-9e89-1f0df601387a>
https://evidenceexplained.com/index.php/node/2074
response
<urn:uuid:13dc2715-ba66-42d6-85e0-6b8f11c48d09>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-62
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/