44 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. Some of the sources say they came from the library of congress, but not all of them do. I'm not sure if that means they have possession of them?

    1. 1. Douglas L. Wilson Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln (New York: Knopf, 1998) 266 2. Wilson Honor's Voice 290; "Abraham Lincoln to Joshua F. Speed, July 4, 1842" Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln 1809-1865 Roy P. Basler, ed., (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953-5) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:306?rgn=div1;view=fulltext 

      Unlike most of the website, citations are available at the bottom of this page. Very rare on this website.

    1. Participating Institutions

      More information is readily accessible through varied institutions. This is as it should be as history is meant to be public and easily researched using other sources.

    2. Copyright and Terms of Use

      Each section is clearly separated by red headers. The website creators even tell you how/who to cite and how to properly use materials on this site.

    1. Who contributed to this project, the editors, affiliated institutions, etc. are readily available right under the main title of the website.

  2. Jun 2018
  3. ktakahata.github.io ktakahata.github.io
    1. μελι το χαλαμιυου το λεγομευον σαχΧαρε

      translation

    2. περιπλουσ

      translation

    3. Saccharum et Arabia fert, sed laudatius India
    4. *Dulces bibebant ex arundine succos*.
  4. ktakahata.github.io ktakahata.github.io
    1. Vos sequor, o Graiae gentis decus, inque vestris nunc Fixa pedum pono pressis vestigia signis; Non ita certandi cupidus, quam propter amorem, Quod vos imitari aveo.——

      from De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius Carus

    1. Agredior primusque novis Helicona movere Cantibus, et viridi nutantes vertice sylvas; Hospita sacra ferens, nulli memorata priorum. MANIL. —
  5. Feb 2018
    1. How to Cite Sources from WASM

      This part where they help users cite things from their website is really interesting to me. I think it's nice that they acknowledge their users are going to need to cite. They make it easy to cite so that they have no excuse not to.

    1. They have such an extensive bibliography. This is fantastic resource because people often need to find primary sources and when they do they need to cite it to demonstrate how important it is as a primary source.

  6. Sep 2017
    1. a particularly influential one published in Nature in 1970 by Ulrich Laemelli, on a new method of electrophoresis revealing as yet unknown proteins in a bacteriophage (unfortunately, if you don’t have a subscription, you’ll need to pay to read the whole paper…)

      To ask the author of this major sciencific paper, the OpenAccessButton enables to ask the author to upload a preprint/postprint version of his/her work in an open archive.

  7. Apr 2017
  8. Mar 2017
  9. Oct 2016
  10. May 2016
    1. a low correlation suggests that the new indicator predominantly reflects something other thanscholarly quality

      or that the previous metric wasn't capturing that dimension of quality

  11. Mar 2016
    1. Greenberg, S. A. (2009). How citation distortions create unfounded authority: Analysis of a citation net-work.British Medical Journal, 339, b2680
  12. Jan 2016
    1. Most studies on animals that are fed genetically modified foods don’t show serious health effects, though there are a few that hint at potential harm to organs like the kidneys, liver and heart, as well as increased risk of cancers and early death in these animals.

      I'd like to see citations for this section. Without citations it's difficult to interpret this statement as anything more than speculation. They are referring to a retracted (and republished, however not without harsh criticism by most scientists in the field, see [https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/24/scientists-react-to-republished-seralini-maize-rat-study/] for comments by scientists) paper by Seralini et al. To me, the "few studies" that hint at those effects amount to just this single, controversial and scientifically questionable study. Then again we don't know for sure how many studies they are referring to because none were cited.

  13. Aug 2015
    1. Quick recap — what authors should do now

      Useful reference for what parts of a citation are actually needed to generate something useful.

    2. Using URL referencing of the kind I employ in this blog, or other innovative methods, readers should be able to go directly (in a single click and in real time) to the specific part of the full text of source that is being cited